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 ...
“But Romney’s use of “health of the mother” is new and it is troubling. But not surprising.”
As long as you have health of the mother exception, you have no limit on abortion. Baby killer doctors just certify the health of the mother is at issue and then kill the baby. Done. Wink wink, aren’t we clever?
This is the exception that IS the rule.
Romney has returned to his baby killer position from Massachusetts.
You did give that impression.
“”He’s “in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.”
It is the correct and moral position.””
“”She can say yes, and she can say no. It really depends on the person. And quite frankly, it really isn’t anybody else’s business what she chooses.””
“”That’s fine.
That’s between the woman, God and her doctor, and it’s not between the woman, God and her doctor and you.””
Standing for the equal right to live of all human beings is not zealotry. It is basic American decency and principle.
Killing children for the sins of others is barbaric.
“But forcing the mother to bear the child of her rapist even if it against her consent?. Sounds like something out of Nazi Germany.”
Let me see if I can explain it. You have two entirely innocent people—a raped mom-to-be and a baby. The question, properly put is, are the very real feelings of the mom-to-be about bearing a rapist’s baby more important than the life of the baby? Remember, the only bad guy here is the rapist. The baby is obviously innocent of wrong and so is the mom.
If you answer that question, “yes—mom’s feelings are more important,” then you have made the moral judgment that lets you take the position you take and the dead baby is OK. But the opposite judgment—that the life of the baby is more important—is hardly Nazi.
It’s a harsh judgment to have to make. Kill a baby or make mom do what she would prefer not to do.
The reason the answer seems so obvious to you, perhaps, is there is noone to speak for the baby—usually it would be mom, but her feelings are on the other side in this case.
Practicing forbearance in the murder of infants is not rape under any circumstances.
You’re exactly right.
Romney has returned to his baby killer position from Massachusetts.
What IS troubling, is Willard taking Ryan down this same evil path. Willard’s team seems to be making a concerted effort to ‘Palinize’ Ryan. <<<<<<And I’m in no way demeaning Sarah.
What I *am* implying is that Willard’s team are marginalizing Ryan and Ryan’s very conservative stances. IMO, shameful. And I hope that Ryan pushes back hard. Very hard. Ryan is the ‘true’ conservative. I just don’t see why the VP nominee should have to give up all of their strongly held beliefs when they sign on to the ticket.
But then, I’m a foolish idealist.
So to keep you in the debate let's say it's OK to kill one innocent baby. Which one will you kill?
“If you are in favor of forcing by law a mother to bear the child of her rapist without her consent, then you are no better than her rapist. Stop playing word games. No sane person is in favor of the purposeful killing of infants.”
Chris, that is a harsh and deeply wrong judgment. Assuming you are sane, you are advocating the killing of a baby in these narrow circumstances, rape of the mom.
You need to face the moral choice you are making here—the baby’s life or the mom-to-be being forced to bear a rapist’s child. You can’t hide it behind buzzwords—choice, keep you hands off, etc. It’s a real moral decision that has to be made and its a really bad choice that no sane person would want to make. But occasionally it has to be made. Kill the baby or not?
You sound foolish when you call people “rapists” and “nazi’s” for saving the baby’s life.
” it’s being killed because the mother never consented and still doesn’t consent.”
Word games. Mom didn’t consent to the rape. You slide from there to mom having the right to consent to the killing of her baby. Two different consents. The second one involves consenting to the death of an innocent baby. The legal issue, properly framed, is whether mom has the right to consent to the death of her baby because she was raped.
I don't really know how long trials take but it's dollars to doughnuts the trial and execution will take long enough for the baby to be born, and maybe even start walking around.
Would you accept it as a desirable outcome of the law that the authorities then take the child and execute her?
The one whose mother is a victim of rape and says that she does not consent to bearing the child.
Yes, it is killing. Some killings are justifiable. If she says she isn’t going to do it, then I am not going to force her to.
The person responsible for the killing is the rapist who caused the situation to begin with, and it is a tragedy of immeasurable proportion.
If the rapist wanted his child to have a good start in life, then perhaps he shuldn’t have forced it upon an innocent victim.
Deb you can’t trust the Rep and Dem candidates on the Israel question anyway. Virgil’s position is simply a variation on their theme!
Just curious...How many times have patients' of your wife been advised not to continue pregnancies due to health issues, and how many times when they ignored their advice did they die? I'd like to get an idea of the statistics of this scenario. How long has your wife been practicing? Do you have examples other than this one that really seems to stick out in your mind?
Is it possible that this woman's heart condition was so severe that whether or not she continued her pregnancy at some point her heart would have failed? Can it be said without a shred of doubt that the advancing pregnancy and only that was the cause of her death?
No more foolish than those calling me a nazi for refusing to force a mother to bear the child of her rapist.
Yes, I am choosing the mother’s rights over the baby’s rights.
The mother’s rights were violated first by the rapist. The baby’s rights were created without her consent as a result of the original violation. The baby’s rights do not supercede hers until she consents to bear the child, so get her consent. Convince her to bear it and raise it or adopt it. But if you can’t get her consent, then you are not justified to force her to do as you will.
You cannot control everything everyone does, even if you do not agree with their actions, and even if you feel justified in attempting to control such. You can’t.
Forcing a woman to bear the child of her rapist is abhorrent.
Quite logically it follows that until the rape and the identity of the rapist is demonstrated in a court of law of appropriate jurisdiction, rape has not been legally demonstrated, ergo, the abortion would be prohibited.
How far are you going to go to kill the kid? Are you going to kill her before the background detective work that uncovers the rapist? Or, wait until after that but maybe before the trial?
Just how much American law are you willing to overturn and abandon just so you can kill that baby that seems to offend you so much?
I find it much simpler to first defend the right to life of the innocent. There are options available that get rid of the kid soon after birth. One option is adoption. Chose Life!
Firstly, I don’t support “health” only “life”.
Health isn’t good enough for me.
Secondly, the other things I said, I meant, and I stand by them. Doesn’t mean I want abortions all day, every day upon request.
It really isn’t that hard to understand, unless of course one is purposely trying very hard not to understand, which I suspect is the case here.
chris37 pregnancy from rape is rare.
I think that in America, that if a woman finds that she has become pregnant from rape, that the system can engage her with a counselor if she is the type to need it, between counseling and clergy, and social aid through delivery, and with total handling of the adoption if needed, I don’t see why we cannot handle such a situation.
The reaction and sentiments of the greater culture most determines how people react to problems. If the new life is valued as an individual and a person, then everyone is elevated by the process of dealing with a rape pregnancy, the mom is valued, and recognized as someone important and life giving, the process reinforces her natural instincts, her better instincts, and makes the sexual violation of reduced significance when compared to the greater importance of life lived, and the gift of a new person to the future, a new person created and carried to term by this woman.
For society to react to such a pregnancy as automatically something to be removed, gives it an aura that taints everything and everyone, including a terrible message to the woman that her violation was far deeper and longer lasting than the act itself, that her very value as a woman and mother is reduced and contaminated, that the baby in her womb is something that she created which is filth, a beast, less than human, that the man not only hurt her that day, but that he also ruined her as a vessel of motherhood.
That is going to leave some life long scarring of a different sort, it will be a deed that she did on her own, to her own body and baby, a reaction, that she might wish someone had steered her away from.
Yep, it sure is.
Killing the baby of a rapist because the mother refuses to bear it is a tragedy no doubt, but it isn't barbaric.
Forcing a woman to bear the child of her rapist when she does not consent to do so is barbaric.
I’m sorry, if you support forcing a woman to bear the child of her rapist without her consent, then you are also her rapist.
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.