Replies

i'm totally anti-baby killing, but do not believe we can mandate on the last two -- that's the choice of the mother and it is a horrible one: to choose her life or the life of her baby however the numbers of abortions due to ALL 4 of these is barely 0.5% to 1% of the total number of abortions.

Cronos, I'm surprised both at you letting Romney off the hook, as you have done here, and compromising at any level on the murder of innocents being the committed conservative Catholic that you are.

First of all, re-read my post, Romney stated he was for Abortions for the HEALTH of the mother, not the LIFE.

As we all know, this is the same lie that the left uses all the time to generalize about what the meaning of the HEALTH of the mother means and justify much more than the paltry 0.5% of abortions as you stated.

Instead of compromising on this issue because Romney is your Republican candidate, why not stand true to your conservative, Christian principles, and hold his feet to the fire and demand he change his position?

Wouldn't that be more in line with a solid Chrisitan walk?

First of all, re-read my post, Romney stated he was for Abortions for the HEALTH of the mother, not the LIFE.

Actually, I should correct that post.

He actually stated he was for abortions for both the Health and Life of the mother.

Furthermore, Mitt has been adamantly stating he was completely pro-life this whole campaign, and now all of a sudden, he states he has been telling us along this campaign season that he supports abortion under these circumstances.

Seems the English language means what Mitt Romney wants it to mean, kind of like Bill Clinton.

I'm not letting Romney off the hook. Nor am I condoning anyone for taking an abortion with the excuse of their health: physical or mental

I am against baby killing of all stripes on a religious basis. On a legal basis, again there can be no justification for the taking of a life unless someone believes that their own life is in danger -- what I mean is this, I'm not a woman and I cannot demand a woman to sacrifice her life -- those who DO, are saints and I salute them

My numbers of 0.5% are taken from the statistics of Polish abortions -- Poland allows abortions only for rape, incest, mother's life and health and foetal defects -- and abortion % is 0.16 -- in 2010 there were 413,300 births and 644 abortions in the country (so abortions under the excuse of rape etc. -- I don't know the break up of these)

In contrast, out of 4,317,119 births in the US in 2009 (all numbers taken from ) there were 676,823 -- an abortion rate of 20%

US population is approximately 9 times the size of Poland's -- hence if we ONLY allowed abortion in case of rape,incest,mother's health and life and foetal "defects", the number of babykillings that would be allowed would be 6,100 -- in stead we have 676,823 --> so one can conclude that out of all the abortions int he US, 99% are not for incest/rape/mothers life/mother health/foeatl defects

THAT's where I get my numbers from -- in contrast, in the US or Russia ti is 20% or more.

Using those numbers, I guestimate that legitimate abortions for mother's health and life are 0.5%

I want Romney to reverse the "free babykillings", but look around you -- the dims are using the 1% of abortions to justify the killing of the other 99% (and those 99% are just for "unwanted pregnancies" -- as evil as killing a baby girl at 3 months)

Look at the bigger picture -- we want to save lives. If we fall for left's game of using the 1% to justifiy the 99%, we fail those 99%.

For now we must focus on the ending of frivolous abortion (the 99%) -- next, when we have the Presidency, Congress and the Senate, then baby killing (instead of adoption) for incest, rape and "foetal defects" is to end -- and note for the latter, I believe it is your and my responsibility as society (NOT government's) to help the parents with children with disabilities

Finally we are then left with a pregnancy that can harms a woman's health (physical) or endanger her life -- for this, I cannot demand her to do this, even though I believe it is wrong to take a life. I can help her through this difficult decision, ask her to think about it, to change her mind, but I cannot demand it of her, I'm sorry. Such a situation is one of a horrible decision, but it is the woman's decision.

finally note that this has been my position (unable to demand on mother's life or health) way before Romney. It has not changed in the past decade since I seriously thought about this and it will not change -- baby killing is baby killing.

Baby killing with the justification of mother's life/health is still horrible, but as I gave in the stats above, this is 0.5% or at max 1% of all abortions --> I am sympathetic with the mother's in those situations and think those who do not kill are saints, but I am HORRIFIED at mothers (AND fathers) who kill their babies for "birth control"