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.)
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.)