Abortion and the election

Don’t read this if you don’t want to; I understand.

It seems to me incoherent to oppose abortion in some cases. If abortion destroys a human child, then it’s wrong, even if the child’s father is a rapist. If abortion does not destroy a human child, then on what basis would the government restrict it in any way?

That said, abortion clearly does destroy a human child. I oppose abortion unconditionally, and I refuse to vote for anyone who does not oppose abortion unconditionally. It might be reasonable for a politician to oppose abortion, but support a bill that outlaws it except in cases of rape, because he thinks it’s better to pass that bill than to fail to pass a better bill. It is not reasonable to maintain that a woman has a right to abortion in cases of rape, but has no right to abortion just because she wants one.

CBS News quotes Mitt Romney saying:

“‘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.'” — Romney: My views on abortion rights are clear

That’s not clear to me. Does he maintain a woman has a right to abortion in those cases? or does he support a bill that would outlaw all abortions except in those cases? Or what exactly? I don’t think he wants to be clear. He wants opponents of abortion to vote for him because he’s against it sometimes, and supporters of abortion to vote for him because he’s for it sometimes.

President Obama is clear on this. If you’re in favor of abortion, Obama is your guy. He’s in favor of unrestricted abortion, even if the child is born alive. That’s appallingly wicked, but he has been clear; and make no mistake, I won’t be voting for President Obama for that reason; though there are other reasons not to vote for him; trillions of reasons, if you know what I mean.

Still, as I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not that keen on the Republicans in the legislature, or on Mitt Romney. If it’s a choice between letting Obama drive us over the cliff at 60, or letting Romney drive us over at 30, I’d about as soon have Obama drive.

But the bottom line is, if Romney doesn’t oppose abortion, I’m not voting for him.


9 Replies to “Abortion and the election”

  1. He means “If I do not allow exceptions for rape and incest, they will slaughter any chance of pro-life positions being moved forward because the second you omit those in this climate, you are accused of wanting to force 13 year old rape victims to raise their rapist’s child.”

    There’s a now over 200 comment discussion going on over at Ricochet (want an invite? I’ve got over 90 left for two free months!) where there’s some pretty impressive excuse finding going on. I think the original guy is sincere, or believes he is, but some of the comments are head-bang worthy. I’ve given up, since no matter how many ways I state the same information, it’s either ignored, or I’m told I didn’t say it, or that it doesn’t matter even though they thought it mattered enough to ask the question in the first place….

    The post that inspired it is pretty dang good, too.

    1. It reminds me of Obama and gay marriage. During the campaign he said he was against it. His supporters assumed he was just saying what he had to – that is, lying to get elected. If that’s what Romney is doing, that’s unfortunate.

      1. Thing is, I don’t think he’s lying.

        I think he’s a pretty normal person who has come to the conclusion that abortion-as-birth-control is horribly wrong, but hasn’t finished thinking it out.

        The second post I linked is on that topic, actually.

  2. I believe that abortion is the killing of a child but I would still allow it for the health and life of the mother. You’ve seen this in the movies: one person is going over a cliff and grabs a rope that is tied around another person, endangering the other person’s life. I don’t think it should be called murder in such a case to cut the rope if you had to to save your own life. It would be cowardly and immoral perhaps, but I don’t think the law should require you to risk your life on behalf of another, any more than it should require you to give money to other people who need it.

    1. Even the Catholic Church allows the indirect killing of the child to save the mother– Fallopian pregnancies are the simplest example, but there’s also things like removing a cancerous womb.

      1. There are probably legitimate and necessary medical procedures a pregnant woman might require that make the child’s survival very unlikely. I’d have thought they would be undertaken without the intent to kill the child. There’s a difference between choosing not to forgo chemo, and choosing to have an abortion. But I’ll defer to you on what the Catholic Church teaches.

        1. Ah, but you cannot have an abortion.

          This is what gets folks confused– they’re looking at the effect, instead of the intent. I know the way I’m saying it isn’t too clear, and with our culture it’s pretty hard to explain anyways. (Kind of like getting the point across that the Church allows hormone therapy, even if it involves an off-label use of the Pill. It’s immoral because you’re trying to have sex without being open to life, not because there’s something magical about a hormone pill.)

          With a Fallopian pregnancy, the cause of death would be the Fallopian tube bursting. So the solution is to remove the area of the tube before it can burst and kill the mother. Sadly, this means the baby will die.

    2. I think in Rome a father could kill his children at will, sell them for slaves, or whatever. It might be possible to make a case that the atom of which the state is made should be the family, not the individual, and so the state cannot interfere in any way with parental choices. I’d have to think more about that. As things are today I suppose a parent might legitimately compel a minor child to donate a kidney or something. I think the state can legitimately forbid anyone from killing an innocent person. I cannot support letting parents deliberately kill their children for any reason.

      1. As things are today I suppose a parent might legitimately compel a minor child to donate a kidney or something.

        They not only can, it’s to the point where the trend has a name- “savior siblings.”

        Keeping people from killing innocent people is kind of the whole POINT of having a state, isn’t it? Protect life, property, etc?

Comments are closed.