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 ...
That's a damned lie.
Sorry but that is the position of the political elite in both parties. Progressives must protect Gaia from the infestation of the intellectually inferior workers, and useless food gobblers.
It’s off the subject, but I’ll explain why rape should not be a capital crime.
Do you know why so many of the Little Lindbergh laws were repealed? I do. It’s also the best common sense reason to not make rape a capital crime. When a crime carries the ultimate penalty, there is no longer any reason whatsoever to not escalate that crime to the ultimate crime.
Several states overreacted and knee-jerked statutes into effect post Lindbergh that made kidnapping a capital crime. Kidnapping, already rare, remained at about the same level of occurance, but the number of kidnappings that escalated to murder spiked. The laws were universally repealed, and the kidnappings that escalated to murder declined to their former levels.
You’d see the same thing with rape. Make it a capital crime, and you’ll see more murder rapes. There is no longer a reason to let the victim live, and every reason not to.
In this case the mother chose to put her life at risk attempting to protect her child.
We have fighting men and women make similar choices all the time. We call them heroes.
Nuff said.
Not comfortable outside your echo chamber, eh Tom?
Nope.
Uh, ok.
So kill the child and let the rapist live? Sounds like something out of Nazi Germany.
“The welfare of mother and child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases,” says Dr. David Reardon, a full-time researcher into the impact of abortion on women, in a valuable article, “ Rape, Incest and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths .” “Both the mother and child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence.”
From his own research and the work of others, Reardon reports some results most people would find surprising:
For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Makhorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion. This evidence alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.
My point is that killing the victim of a crime is wrong. If anyone should die it should not be the victim. Unfortunately society has decided that being conceived by rape or incest makes one deserving of the death penalty.
Kill the rapist if you want, I don’t care.
As far as what happens to the child, that is for the mother and victim of the rapist to determine, not you.
But forcing the mother to bear the child of her rapist even if it against her consent?
Sounds like something out of Nazi Germany.
As we learned way back in the 1960s, “health” means pro-abortion.
Health can mean anything, including the stress of being pregnant.
Romney has been pro-abortion for 49 straight years.
(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.
For the same reason that the death penalty for murdering all the witnesses and victims died out?
You are a bald faced liar.
“Health can mean anything”
That’s exactly correct, which is why they passed Extortion-Care. They’re lining up circling wagons, to Exempt themselves of the coming extortion of “anything.”. Asset Theives.
Two wrongs cannot make something right. Yes, rape is a hideous crime. Yes, the perpetrator should be punished. But when a child is conceived as a result of rape, he or she is not the perpetrator. The child is an innocent victim, just like the mother. Just as there should have been someone there to protect the mother from the crime of rape, someone needs to be there to protect the child from the crime of abortion (i.e., murder).
I really don’t understand you people who support Virgil Goode when he’s for the complete abandonment of Israel. He’s called for the US to withdraw all aid and support for our only dedicated ally in the mideast. He’s nuts.
No, it’s not that.
I’ve just never seen an open pro-abort survive here.
But, who knows what might happen with the rise of Romney Republicanism.
Since when did no abortion except in the cases of rape, incest and life of the mother become pro-abortion? I feel like I've woken up in the twilight zone.
The first principle of this country is that the raison d’etre, or reason for being, of all human government, is the equal protection of our individual God-given, unalienable rights, starting with the right to life.
Romney, with his judicial supremacist, pro-choice for states, pro-abortion-if-a-majority-says-it’s-okay position, denies that our right to live is God-given and therefore unalienable. He thinks it is instead up to the choice of men.
As I said, he is a pro-choice democrat, by definition. He’s not pro-life, once you peel away the one thin layer of craven lies he added to run for president.
If a politician said the courts could legitimately strip away your right to Keep and Bear Arms, or that a majority vote could strip away that right, or that the states could outlaw the keeping or bearing of arms if they wanted to, would you venture to call him “pro-Second Amendment”?
It’s silly, frankly.
It’s pro-abortion for the dead child.
I’m sorry that you don’t understand the simple principle of equality before the law. It’s the foundation stone of this free republic.
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.