Why is Mitt Romney opposing abortion so bad?

October 18, 2012 in Day to day, Faith with 11 Comments

I’ve been watching the political season with disdain.  I’m so tired of the continual cow patty throwing that happens from both major sides of the political fence and piles up on those of us in the middle.  There’s so much political manure in the middle ground these days they could grow crops until the year 3024 without needing to add additional fertilizer.

So I’ve been staying out of debates on this blog because I don’t want to make it a political blog.

But I saw something today that really just makes me stand back and wonder.

President Obama’s election team put out a new commercial where they take Mitt Romney to task for opposing abortion.  In a debate, Anderson Cooper of CNN asked Romney if the Congress overturned Roe v. Wade if he would sign the bill.  Romney answered he would be happy to do it.  The ad then goes on to imply if Romney’s elected that women will lose the right to choose to kill their babies via abortion.  (Never mind that a Roe v. Wade override isn’t going to be sent to a President’s desk any time soon unless we suddenly have a serious hard right shift in 3/4 of the states and both houses of Congress.)

As the ad ended, I had a question come to my mind.

Why is it so bad that Mitt Romney doesn’t want to see babies killed via abortion?

What Anderson Cooper asked Mitt Romney was essentially this:  If you have the chance to stop babies being killed via abortion, would you do it?

He said he would be happy to do it.  Why is that so bad?

Why is wanting to protect the life of a baby so horrible that he needs to be flogged for it?

Why is it so bad that the President of the United States wants to hold this man up as a horrible example of leadership for wanting to see babies live?

Look, you can say it’s a “woman’s right to choose” and stop there but the rest of that statement is “to kill her baby via abortion.”  THAT is the choice.  There’s no way to honestly say that the “choice” is anything but killing the baby vs. not killing the baby.  That’s the honest, no-spin, scientific truth.  Abortion ends of the life of a baby.

So asking Mitt Romney if he would sign a bill to stop giving women the choice to end the life of their baby is asking him if he would prevent an option of killing a baby.

HOW is that really so bad?

Look, we can debate the ancillary points around abortion.  I think the church, for example, has been woefully pathetic in caring for the needs of unwed mothers in this country.  (Actually, caring for many people in general like the widows and orphans.)  There’s no doubt in my mind that because the church failed to completely fulfill God’s commands to us the government has had to step in and provide many services that God called on us to provide.  If abortion was stopped, there would be an immediate…and I would say moral and spiritual obligation…to care for those women, those children and make sure there’s none of them who fall through the cracks.  I’m not one to say “end abortion and they’re on their own for their mistake.”  That’s not grace on any level.

However, those ancillary things cannot weigh on the core point of all of this:  abortion ends a baby’s life.

So Mitt Romney, in the clip used by President Obama’s team, is essentially being asked if he would stop babies being killed via abortion.  Mitt Romney said if given that opportunity, he would move to stop the killing of babies via abortion.

I fail to see why that is bad.

(Note:  Before anyone starts on the “you’re just a Romney supporter” routine that seems to enter these kinds of things via knee-jerk, programmed reaction…I’m not voting for either one of these guys on election day.  I really don’t care for either one’s positions.  I’m just looking as an outside observer to their back and forth and wondering why not killing babies is being considered a horrific thing for someone to endorse.)

 

About Jason Wert:

All Posts by  |  Share By Email
  • http://billgrandi.com/ Bill (cycleguy)

    One more thing: love the picture of the trash can and note to the USPS.  That is a hoot! 

  • http://billgrandi.com/ Bill (cycleguy)

    Two words: Scare Tactic.  All I’m going to say. 

  • Lovelacemo45

    Jason, I would like to complement you both on your logic and language. However if you believe as I do that abortion is an intrinsic evil, then voting for Romney should be a must because  Obama’s reelection will only mean more killing of unborn children. 

    Sarah has her facts slightly incorrect. The Supreme Court decision Roe vs Wade allowed abortion to protect the life and health of the mother. The Supreme Court decision Doe vs Bolton defined the life and health of the mother as any mental or physical problem. This language then allowed the mother to simply say that her unborn baby was causing her to have mental stress which could happen at any time during the pregnancy. Sarah also forgot about “Partial Birth Abortion” in which the baby is almost completely delivered except for the head. Then the head is punctured allowing the abortionist to suck out the brains causing death  and probably extreme pain. These abortions  are performed at birth making viability a non issue. As far as viability is concerned, babies have survived after only a five month pregnancy. 

    And, I have one final point. Obama both worked and voted against the “Born Alive Child Protection Act” when he was in the state senate. He is the most pro-abortion president in the history of our country…

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=588202986 Sarah Grace Ryle

      Acceptable government regulation according to Roe v. Wade:

      Different rules at different stages of pregnancy were considered appropriate:
      In the first trimester, the state (that is, any government)
      could treat abortion only as a medical decision, leaving medical
      judgment to the woman’s physician.

      In the second trimester (before viability), the state’s
      interest was seen as legitimate when it was protecting the health of the
      mother.

      After viability of the fetus (the likely ability of the fetus to be able to survive outside and separated from the uterus), the potential of human life could be considered as a legitimate state interest, and
      the state could choose to “regulate, or even proscribe (forbid or denounce) abortion” as long
      as the life and health of the mother was protected.http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/p/roe_v_wade.htm

      I agree with a partial birth abortion ban (but this does not mean overturning Roe vs. Wade, as Roe vs. Wade already states that a regulation may be passed forbidding abortion at the point of  viability.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=588202986 Sarah Grace Ryle

    Here is what’s wrong, or bad: Ending a women’s right to choose wouldn’t end abortion, any more than outlawing guns will stop killings via shooting, or outlawing marijuana has stopped people from accessing and smoking it.  Providing a safe medical procedure for a woman to terminate a pregnancy keeps them from using coat hangers in back allies. That is fact. I do not support overturning Roe vs. Wade. I would never personally choose an abortion for myself, but in a country filled with the freedoms and rights we have, a woman should have the right to decide if she wants to continue with a pregnancy or not.

    Roe vs. Wade allows a woman to terminate a pregnancy up until the point of viability (the likely point a fetus can survive outside the womb.) A bunch of men in government shouldn’t be able to tell any woman what to do with her body or her pregnancy.  Period. This isn’t about “right or wrong” of abortion itself, but whether or not in the free country of America, the government should have the power to say what a woman does with her body. Not everyone agrees that a baby is a baby before it is born. Science declares otherwise – and until a fetus is viable, we cannot generally claim it as a self-sustaining life.

    Personally, I hate abortion, but I hate it as much as I hate anyone forcing their belief or view point on someone else… and outlawing abortion because a group of people in our country believe it is wrong, is forcing that view point on those who don’t. You don’t like abortion, don’t have one. You don’t like guns, don’t buy one. You don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one. You don’t like cigarettes/marijuana/etc, don’t smoke one. You get the picture – you don’t like your rights infringed upon, so don’t suggest other people should have their rights infringed upon just because certain people disagree with said right – if you don’t want your rights taken away, don’t take away someone else’s. My problem with most conservative republicans is they support limited government unless it means making a law against something they personally disagree with… government should be limited to protecting our nation as a whole and the general welfare of it’s citizens as a whole (making sure everyone is fed, clothed, sheltered) but should not infringe upon the personal decisions or rights of any individual.

    • http://www.mustardseedyear.com/ Jason Wert

      I appreciate your response…but I respectfully disagree with pretty much all of it.

      “Here is what’s wrong, or bad: Ending a women’s right to choose wouldn’t end abortion, any more than outlawing guns will stop killings via shooting, or outlawing marijuana has stopped people from accessing and smoking it. ”

      So under your logic, murder should be allowed because some people can’t stop themselves from killing someone else.

      “Providing a safe medical procedure for a woman to terminate a pregnancy keeps them from using coat hangers in back allies.”

      Again, using your logic, we should then provide guns to murderers that have been checked to make sure they operate efficiently and kill with the first shot to minimize their victim’s pain?

      “a woman should have the right to decide if she wants to continue with a pregnancy or not.”

      Again, this is flowery language to avoid the truth:  abortion is killing a baby.  It’s not “continuing a pregnancy” which eliminates the harsh truth of the situation.   Calling it that is just a way to ease the feelings of the people who want to do it.

      “the likely point a fetus can survive outside the womb.”

      A newborn child cannot survive outside the womb on it’s own.  Therefore, under the definition of viability, it’s not viable.

      “A bunch of men in government shouldn’t be able to tell any woman what to do with her body or her pregnancy.”

      Again, using your logic, there should be no taxation of anyone in America because no man or woman in government should be able to tell anyone what to do with their money.  Also, there should be no laws against a brother and sister marrying.   Or someone deliberately burning an apartment building they own to the ground because it’s their property and should be able to do what they want with it.

      You’re in favor of government telling people what to do.  You just don’t like it in this case.

      “This isn’t about “right or wrong” of abortion itself.”

      WRONG.  This is ENTIRELY about that.  Either killing a baby is wrong or it isn’t.  

      “Not everyone agrees that a baby is a baby before it is born. Science declares otherwise – and until a fetus is viable, we cannot generally claim it as a self-sustaining life.”

      And those people are wrong.  Just because someone believes something doesn’t mean it’s right. And the viability argument was posted earlier.  

      “Personally, I hate abortion, but I hate it as much as I hate anyone forcing their belief or view point on someone else… and outlawing abortion because a group of people in our country believe it is wrong, is forcing that view point on those who don’t. ”

      Actually, if you REALLY hated abortion, you wouldn’t be in favor of allowing it.  But you apparently are in favor of a group wanting to allow abortion because a group of people in our country believe it’s OK forcing that view point on those who don’t.  And if you want to claim that never happens, let’s talk to men who had wives or girlfriends run off and abort children without their agreement.  That’s forcing it. And you’re in favor of that apparently.

      “You get the picture – you don’t like your rights infringed upon, so don’t suggest other people should have their rights infringed upon just because certain people disagree with said right – if you don’t want your rights taken away, don’t take away someone else’s. ”

      Except you are infringing on rights.  You’re infringing on the parental rights of men who do not want their child aborted.  Their DNA is just as much a part of this as hers.  He is just as responsible for that child as her.  You have no problem stripping them of their rights.

      And all of what you said really is irrelevant to the main point.  Romney was asked if given the chance to end abortion and thus protect the lives of babies why he should do it.  He said he would.  Just because you think someone should be allowed to kill their baby doesn’t mean it’s bad that Romney would want to let them live.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=588202986 Sarah Grace Ryle

        WOW. I don’t even know where to begin. Good job at twisting my words though… nice apples & oranges comparisons… First off, you assume you know me – I’m not in favor of “the government telling people what to do.” I vote libertarian, I do not support Obama nor Romney. I am for limited government involvement in personal affairs of individuals. Frankly, it’s not my place to say who marries who… my whole point was, it’s not one person’s, or even one specific group of people’s place to say who can marry who… or if a woman should continue a pregnancy or not… the government should protect the people from each other, but not from themselves. Laws against murder protect people from each other. A fetus is not a person.

        Even the bible does not take a “direct stance” on abortion… nor does it see the unborn as a human being. If men have a fight and one of them causes a pregnant woman to miscarry,
        the penalty was a fine; if the mother was harmed, it was “life for
        life” (Exod. 21:22,23). The Bible contains over 600 laws governing everything from fabrics to
        how to cut a beard yet contains no law prohibiting abortion. Jesus never
        mentioned it. As the Oxford Companion to the Bible notes:
        Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27:3-7, indicates
        that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as
        those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child
        under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any
        status. http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fetus.shtml

        As for men’s rights, they cannot be the ones pregnant, so it is not up to them. If I get pregnant, and I find out my health or life is at stake due to the pregnancy, it’s MY right to choose. Again, as I stated previously, PERSONALLY I’m against abortion – meaning I do not like it, thus I would not do it (unless it was a definite life or death situation). But it is MY choice to make not to have that abortion, and it is not my choice or anyone else’s if another woman has an abortion. Just because I’m pro-choice, doesn’t mean I’m pro-abortion… It’s a lot more complex than that. And I love how men think they know it all about whether or not a woman should remain pregnant or not. If I were raped, I’d personally keep the child – but my ability and strength to do so after such a traumatic experience may not be the same for another woman. It should not be dictated whether or not a woman should carry a child – that is a personal decision, for the woman to make, not a man.

        We should be preventing unwanted pregnancies through the use of education and contraception. This would reduce the number of abortions. I agree we should ban late term (partial birth) abortions… this doesn’t mean overturning Roe vs. Wade – Roe vs. Wade already allows for the regulation or ban of late term abortions. Most abortions are due to social reasons (93%). Not feeling ready for a baby/responsibility, can’t afford, doesn’t want more children, relationship issues, single mother, isn’t mature enough, etc etc… This is the number we should be preventing – not through banning abortion all together, but again through better education and availability of contraceptives… as well as better counseling for these women regarding adoption, or their options to help them keep the baby, once pregnant. Not all will decide to keep the baby or go the adoption route – but it is their decision to make, and they should have a safe place to make that decision, and it should be a well informed decision – this is where we (as a society) are lacking.

        • http://www.mustardseedyear.com/ Jason Wert

          Sarah, there’s no need to get so defensive. We’re just having a discussion.

          You in favor of government forcing laws on citizens like the law forcing abortion on our society.  You are in favor of the laws that you support.  It’s disingenuous to say that you are not in favor of the government telling people what to do.  

          As for “knowing you”, I will admit I made the assumption you are a Christian.  Based on your using an anti-Christian group as the basis for your attempt to counterpoint on abortion, I apologize for making the assumption you were a Christian.  That makes your advocacy for promoting abortion and marriage that is counter to the Bible understandable as you do not have a Biblical basis for your worldview.

          But the “Jesus never said it” argument is a very very weak argument.  If you want to use that as a basis for belief, Jesus gave one example of marriage during his time on earth:  one man and one woman.  Even during his time, that definition was radical as many men had more than one wife.  So to endorse anything else, as you endorse gay marriage in your statement, is directly in conflict with the words of Jesus.  (Again, as you are not a Christian, you obviously can’t be expected to hold to Jesus’ teachings, but I’m pointing this out as counterpoint to the “Jesus never said it” belief system.)

          You stated here than men have no rights when it comes to abortion.  Does that mean you are 100% against men being held liable for child support?  After all, if they have no rights to the decision about whether the child is killed via abortion or not, it’s very disingenuous to make them pay for the child and provide care for it after birth.  Either men have rights to the child or they do not.  You cannot have it both ways and be intellectually honest in your position.  

          Also, from your words, you seem to hold a deep hostility toward men.  Statements like: “And I love how men think they know it all about whether or not a woman should remain pregnant or not” show a real contempt and disdain.  That seems to be filtering into your views as well as a dismissal of men seems to be a consistent theme regarding your opinions on abortion.

          I agree with you regarding education and counseling.  That falls into line with my earlier stated views that the church has really dropped the ball in caring for women in this situation.  

          I appreciate your discussion and again, I’m sorry for having assumed you were a Christian.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=588202986 Sarah Grace Ryle

             I am a Christian, I just take a more progressive stance on issues like abortion and gay marriage. And I take that stance biblically, based on my own person study, not the views of any specific religious church or group. Just because my political views are more left-wing doesn’t mean I’m a non-believer… it just means I don’t  believe the same as you. :) Also, don’t assume my stance is “defensive” – I’m just adding my points to the discussion – but I am passionate about what I believe, as are you. And I mostly use sites that aren’t of any specific religion (because most “Christian” sites are biased towards fundamental views, which are not the only “Christian” views out there.)

            Regarding my “thoughts” on child support, personally, I have a child whose father is not in the picture – I did not go after him for child support. He did not want a baby, I chose to keep him. I met my husband who adopted him. I don’t think these things should be so generalized (abortion, child support). If my husband and I divorced, I am required by the state to file for child support. But we were married, we have one child together, the other he chose to adopt. Yes, he should support his children. But again, we shouldn’t generalize that all abortions involve a pregnancy created by two consenting, married, or committed adults.

          • http://www.mustardseedyear.com/ Jason Wert

            Then I apologize for assuming you weren’t a Christian.  As you said, not “knowing you” I could only go off your links and statements and so I assumed the group you references was representative of your belief system.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=588202986 Sarah Grace Ryle

             Too-shay. Understood. LOL. And to answer your main question- opposing abortion itself is not bad – I oppose abortion. But being pro-choice and being against the illegalization of abortion is not simply “supporting abortion.” Passing laws against everything to try and stop it isn’t always the answer, nor is it as easy as it seems. Trying to restrict an individual of their choices in life is not the role of the government in this free country we live in. They should protect our citizens as a whole, as a community or nation – through defense of our country and caring for the welfare of our citizens. It is not their place to say who marries whom, or who does what with their unwanted pregnancy. :) At the very least, the federal government should leave it up to the states and focus on the “bigger picture” up top… issues like abortion and marriage should be state level issues. Defense and citizen welfare should be federal, IMO. That’s where I come from… and if you really want to understand my belief system, this is it: http://sgryle.blogspot.com/2012/10/i-am-progressive-christian-what-does.html