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 ...
I’m not an open pro-abort.
Just because I say a woman’s consent must be sought in the case of a baby conceived by rape doesn’t mean I want her to abort it.
What it means is her consent must be sought.
I’m not going to deny her her consent as her rapist did.
I refuse to do that.
It's also a gross violation of the founding principles of our nation's charter, all of the stated purposes of our Constitution, and the explicit, imperative requirements of that Constitution.
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
Sadly, by the action of his crime, the rapist placed the baby at a disadvantage potentially.
It isn’t guaranteed that such a baby will be aborted, but it’s possible.
Two wrongs indeed does not make a right. Forcing a woman to bear the child of her rapist when she does not want to is also a wrong.
If a woman chooses to bear that child, and with adopt or raise it, then she is certainly a very strong and generous woman.
If a woman chooses not to bear that child, then her choice is both understandable and justifiable. It is not the ideal outcome by any means, but if such a decision is made, I will respect it.
The opportunity to consent to bearing a child that was denied her by her rapist is not going to be denied her by me.
I will ask her what she wants to do, and I will respect her decision either way.
If a woman decides to abort a baby on such flimsy grounds as stress, then she will bear the burden of that decision for the rest of her life.
You can’t save everyone from themselves, and you can’t control everything everyone does.
I support abortion being legal in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother. I do not support abortion being legal in the case of health of the mother, which to me seems to be an open barn door. The legal hurdle needs to be higher than that in my mind.
But I will never support a mother being forced to bear the child of a rapist. Never.
It isn’t being killed for someone else’s crime, it’s being killed because the mother never consented and still doesn’t consent.
Stop misframing the issue.
If you think the uanalienable right to life is alienable by the choice of men or women, you are by definition pro-choice.
You have abandoned the principles of the Declaration of Independence. You have shredded every clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution. You couldn’t care less about the explicit, imperative requirements of the Constitution that every officer is required to swear a sacred oath to defend.
In essence, your position, and Romney’s position, is identical to Barack Obama’s position.
A position which represents the destruction of the basis for this free republic and our claim to liberty, and destroys the principle of equality before the law.
You must be as bad a writer as me, because your posts read as pro-abortion.
In this post you describe yourself as to the right of Mitt Romney on abortion.
Look, man, this is nonsense. Stop being a zealot. Obama is for killing babies already born. Do not insult me.
I understand you want to protect the life of the unborn, and that is fine, but to proceed to do that without the consent of the rape victim is a continuation of the crime of rape. Get her consent, then you're golden. Don't get her consent, then you are doing something that I will not support.
We as decent people must do what the rapist refused to do. I will not proceed in any way without correcting that original crime by asking her. You call it whatever you want. I am going to call what you want to do rape by means of law.
“...and the health and life of the mother.”
And the health and life of the baby?
Read it however you want.
Shall I call you pro-rape?
If someone ever defended rape like you defend abortion, you would have to.
Fine, but the mother in that case must be executed.
>> It’s the correct and moral position.
How is it correct and moral to kill nascent life?
There’s also the possibility that it’s not moral to force a rape victim to bear the child, nor is it moral to kill it.
I’m not sure the crowd that accepts this position is really that interested in finding solutions that aim to help both the mother and child. I’m not claiming to have the answers, but maybe it’s worth a national effort instead of the dismissive attitude that readily discards the life of the noob.
What I have defended is the mother’s right to consent, which was violated by her rapist, and you are also attempting to do the exact same thing.
If your position was as cut and dry as you think it is, then everyone should agree with it, but they don’t.
I have said this before, and I will say it again. You will never succeed in passing into law forcing a rape victim to bear the child of her rapist.
Ever.
It is absolute madness.
That post wasn’t a response to me, we haven’t been having that discussion.
Well, you call me pro-abortion for defednign a mother’s righ tto consent as it regards bearing the child of her rapist.
I’m not pro-abortion at all.
I’m also not pro-forcing a mother to yield her right to consent.
So, I can tell that you are not for abortion being legal in the case of rape, incest or life of the mother, and I am just telling you that being against that proviosn isn’t reasonable and it won’t ever be law.
If you are for abortion being legal in the case of rape, incest or life of the mother, then say so.
If you reread your first few posts, then you will see that you gave the impression that you were very pro-abortion.
Well, in fact you are. You've said so repeatedly on this thread.
No, you may have recieved that impression, but I certainly did not give that impression.
My experience with pro-lifers is that if one does not agree with their position 100.00%, then one is 100.00% pro-abortion, which is also maddness.
Uh, no.
WHat I have said repeatedly in this thread is that I am pro abortion BEING LEGAL in the case of rape, incest or life of the mother.
That does not mean I want abortions happening all, day every day even after the baby has already been born...
Once again, stop being a zealot.
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.