Many of my pro-life friends are passing around this video as evidence that Romney has betrayed them on the social issues. While it indeed does portray Romney as a squishy moderate on abortion, the position it argues for is exactly that of George W. Bush and John McCain: No abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. This is a view that hasn’t satisfied pro-lifers—and shouldn’t—but it’s the best we’ve been able to get. (Nor of course has anyone proposed banning contraception.)
Where Romney represents a definite improvement over these candidates for pro-lifers is that at times he portrays this not as a pro-life stance, but rather as a thoroughly moderate one. In the above ad, Romney redraws the lines of the abortion debate. What Richard John Neuhaus called the “extremity of the mainstream” is undermined, and the previous extreme is presented as the new middle. This is just the sort of move that should encourage pro-lifers and enrage those who support abortion.
October 19th, 2012 | 3:56 pm
The ability of pro-lifers to make disastrous political mistakes because of their need for the perfectly pro-life candidate always amazes me. Here in Delaware, some of my pro-life friends voted in 2008 for Christine O’Donnell in the GOP primary, because Mike Castle was bad on life issues (and he was). The Democrat was even worse, but that didn’t matter to these pro-life friends: they helped O’Donnell get the nomination, thus guaranteeing the victory of the pro-abortion Democrat in the general election — whereas Castle would certainly have beaten him. Fast forward to 2012: it now looks probable that the GOP will NOT win the Senate this year. Had the GOP nominated Castle, instead of O’Donnell, the GOP would have 1 more seat in the Senate and a much better chance of controlling it. Here is the irony, which would be funny if it were not so potentially tragic for the unborn: by voting for the pro-life O’Donnell, these well-meaning people have greatly increased the chance that the “pro-choice” Democrats will control the Senate, and thus Supreme Court nominations at a time when it is likely that some key people will be leaving the Court.
Why cannot the pro-life side be as politically smart as our opponents? I don’t know who these pro-life friends of yours are Matthew, but they are not very astute. (That is the most polite way I can think of saying it.)
October 19th, 2012 | 5:35 pm
On the one hand, those for whom a pro-life agenda is the top concern in this election would be foolish not to vote for Romney based on his “moderate” position of permitting abortions in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. But while it is easy to see why pro-life advocates who believe personhood begins at birth would be disappointed by Romney’s position, I think it would be arrogant to call themselves the only true pro-lifers. Romney’s position on abortion is consistent with Mormon teaching.
So presumably Romney’s position on abortion is based on sincere belief, not political expediency. Those in the pro-life movement cannot expect Mormon support (or Jewish support, either), it seems to me, for a law banning all abortions.
It seems to me that many people who think of themselves as pro-life simply do not accept the position that at conception, a human person with an absolute right to life comes into existence. Are they really not pro-life? Must one accept, say, the teachings of the Catholic Church to be pro-life? Or is there room for more than one view about when the inalienable right to life begins?
October 20th, 2012 | 8:38 am
The pro-life movement, in general, pursues two agendas side-by-side. On the one hand, it tries to persuade fellow citizens of the pro-life stance on principle–to kill an innocent human being, however small or young, and for whatever reason, is murder, and ought to be treated as such if we are to have consistent law governing us.
While hoping that enough people hear this and have a change of heart, the pro-life movement is also pursuing tactics to save the babies that it can (and importantly the mothers too). In the present we do what we can, while enduring unjust laws which we hope will be overturned in the future.
Voting in a very pro-life, though not perfect pro-life, candidate is consistent with this overall approach.
The risk of “rewarding” Romney’s policy is that the principle of life will be somewhat undermined. (It is a matter of moral principle that you don’t do a great evil [eg murder] trying to achieve a good.) However, if we don’t take that risk we get a sure thing: Obama, the Son of Lies.
October 20th, 2012 | 1:59 pm
Since Romney’s position allowing exceptions for abortions in the case of rape, incest, severe fetal abnormalities, and threat to the life of the mother are consistent with Mormon teaching, those who seek to outlaw all abortion seem to be comfortable with denying a Mormon (or Jewish) woman the choice to have a life-saving abortion. Isn’t it more than a little arrogant to be so thoroughly convinced of your own absolutist position on abortion that you would deny potentially life-saving choices to women of religions in which those choices are considered licit?
I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that abortion will be criminalized in the United States, and even if it is, I think it is almost unimaginable that abortions would be legally banned in the case of threat to the life of the mother. So while in reality it is highly unlikely that those who take an absolutist stand against abortion will ever be able to deny a Mormon or a Jew a lifesaving abortion, nevertheless they apparently still would if they could. It is difficult for me to see this as anything other than one religious group claiming it should be able to deny other religious groups the choice of making life-or-death decisions based on their own (Mormon or Jewish) religious beliefs.
October 20th, 2012 | 10:42 pm
Coming, as I do, from a state which saw the REPUBLICAN Party legalize abortion, I understand why some pro-lifers are suspicious about Romney, Castle and other candidates of the Republican establishment The Delaware fiasco demonstrating a clear contempt for the will of the party grassroots. The basis of any law against any abortion is not religious. As for Matthew Schmitz’ contention, I am intrigued – I am listening.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact