What Does It Mean to Be Pro-Life?
When Mitt Romney was running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 he said that while he personally opposed abortion, he would ??protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts?Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government??s.?
This raises an important question as to whether a person can be personally ??pro-life? and supportive of a ??women??s right to choose? simultaneously as suggested by Mitt.
In short the answer is a resounding, no.
If you are ??pro-life? it means that you support legal protection for living human beings inside their mother??s womb regardless of the stage of development.
Those who call themselves ??pro-choice? support the legal ??right? to abort their developing baby in the mother??s womb. The term ??pro-choice? is actually a misnomer since the baby who is killed during an abortion ??procedure? never gets a ??choice? in the matter. Thus, people who don??t support legal protection for developing babies in the womb are pro-abortion.
I would also like to ask Governor Romney if the 750,000 female babies in the womb who are killed every year in the US should have a ??choice? in the matter.
So, you can only be one or the other. It??s understandable that politicians such as Romney, Kerry, and Clinton all say they personally ??oppose abortion? but don??t believe they have a ??right to impose their beliefs on somebody else.? After all, they are attempting to appeal to both sides of the debate by staking out some ??moderate? more ??middle of the road? position.
As I write in my book ??Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies?
??The bottom line is that those who call themselves ??pro-choice? oppose legal protection for the unborn and condone the murder of other developing babies. Indeed, one can??t be pro-choice and pro-life simultaneously. The statement that ??I believe that abortion is murder and am personally opposed to murder but support a women??s right to choose murder? is an irreconcilable, confused, and utterly absurd notion that is totally inane.?
It??s like saying: ??I oppose slavery and would never own one personally, but don??t think I have a right to impose my beliefs on others. It??s a choice people have to make individually.?
Memo to Governor Romney: When you are elected to public office, your job is to advance the ideas and values you believe in and ran on and to codify them into law. So, in a way, as an elected representative of the people, your job is to impose your beliefs- which are ostensibly the shared beliefs of those who elected you to office- and to enshrine them into law. What do you think governors and presidents do, just let the people decided matters by the dictates of their own ??beliefs?? That a presidential candidate-especially a self-described conservative would hold such an opinion is fairly unsettling.
With regards to Romney??s comment that, ??Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government??s?- this too is totally inane and demonstrates to me that this is not the type of brain power we want occupying the White House. By his line of reasoning, government should not restrict abortion in any way even ??partial birth abortion? since it might conflict with a ??women??s personal beliefs.? I wonder how Governor Romney would reconcile that incongruous position if questioned?
If the Republican party now feels that men such as Giuliani and Romney- liberal country club Republicans through and through-are qualified to lead the Party of Lincoln and Reagan, then we will have abandoned what Thomas Jefferson considered government??s primary role- the protection of innocent human life. And when and if we take that step, that will be the beginning of the end for the Republican Party and, I believe, America.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:35 pm
You know living in Mass. is so confusing..when a woman kills her baby here..by “choice” she is safe from arrest…but when a woman carrying a child and is a member of a cult..they lock her up so she can’t “Harm” her child! It is VERY sad to think that women can so calmly destroy life even days before birth and yet they wonder why they get no respect! There are so many people who would supply good homes to unwanted children and these people must ache every day longing for one little baby! I recently read Mark Steyn’s book..”America Alone” and he hits the Point!
January 24th, 2007 at 4:20 am
Thus, people who don??t support legal protection for developing babies in the womb are pro-abortion. ?
Maybe something like, “Thus, people who don’t support legal protection for babies…”
I could not agree with more. I have been considering beginning just a straight up Conservative Party. I don’t have the money and don’t personally know the people I need to make it happen, but Abraham Lincoln came in on a third party ticket…
Republicans disgust me. Check this out: Thought of the day.
January 24th, 2007 at 4:23 am
Nevermind about the first thing. D’oh! I just reread it. What a dope I can sometimes be.
January 24th, 2007 at 6:10 am
“irreconcilable, confused, and utterly absurd notion that is totally inane.?
I see someone got a thesaurus for his birthday.
As to Caron McCarthy’s statement “There are so many people who would supply good homes to unwanted children and these people must ache every day longing for one little baby!” all I can do is laugh. That certainly explains the number of children waiting to be adopted around the country. Or does this quote simply refer to healthy white infants? I can probably guess the answer, given the poster’s affinity for Mark Steyn.
January 24th, 2007 at 11:54 am
That draft you feel is the tent getting bigger.
Gregg, I know there is no room in your moral universe for people who struggle with these decisions and allow for other opinions (i.e., choice). It is not a black and white issue for most people, which is why there are pro-choice people who would never consider having an abortion. I suspect you will find more people of that stripe than the black-and white hard-liners on either side of the issue. But the problem with the hard-liners is that they won’t bother to look.
January 25th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Doug, let’s get beyond the “hard liners” rhetoric and accusations that I don’t understand how difficult a decision it is for somebody considering an abortion. You don’t even know me.
As usual, you don’t deal directly with the content from my post. While I appreciate the fact you take the time to comment, it would be helpful if you specificaly dealth with my original post and explain SPECIFICLY what you disagree with. I made the point that you can’t be “pro-life” personally as Romney claims to be and supportive of abortion (euphemistically referred to as “choice.”). So yes, Doug, the choice is quite clear. Either you support legal protections and right to life for all unborn babies in the womb(the most defenseless among us) or you are ok with the destruction of that living human being in the womb and prefer to call killing that baby “choice.” So Doug, I would argue that indeed, to the baby being killed it is definately “black and white.” might not be “nuanced” enough for you but it happens to be the unvarnished unadulturated truth.
Gregg
January 26th, 2007 at 3:39 am
For the uninformed, “abortion” is simply a “nice” name for the murder of the pre-born. Gregg is right on with his comments on Romney. The latter sort of reminds me of former Governor of New York, Hugh Carey. A “fine Irish Catholic,” Carey was unabashedly pro-life until he ran for Governor and needed the “liberal” vote. So he abandoned the babies in favor of his career. Then, after he left office and probably smelled his mortality, he reverted to being pro-life. Then, his son went to Washington, Ol’ Hugh reverted again to being pro-abortion so the younger Carey wouldn’t be burdened with a daddy who was, GASP! a pro-lifer! I just wonder how well people like Carey–and Romney–sleep at night. Seriously, don’t the thoughts of hypocrisy and dead babies bother them?
January 26th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
As they say on the Big Show, “You’re making my point.”
January 26th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Doug,
Thanks for your response (non-response) which I will take to mean that you can not answer the direct quetion I posed to you in my last exchange.
And the reason that you can’t is that it is an indefensible position. One cannot be “pro-life” (a supporter of legal rights and privaleges to life for the unborn) personally and opposed to those very same laws simultaneously (as “pro-choicers” are).
It is an untenable and incongrous position that is totally self contradictory. It is one or the other. I would have more respect for somebody like Guiliani who supports abortion on demand than Romney who tries to have it both ways.
Gregg
January 29th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Gregg, we live in a different moral dimension than DougH. Being a recovering liberal, I can translate. Speaking from a point of view of relative morality, it is all about Self. As you point out, compared to absolute moral standards, there is no reconciling of the rights of diverse “Selves”, so it becomes a power dynamic. As confirmed by Darwin in this worldview, it is survival of the fittest “Self”. The unborn were among the first casualties as this humanistic worldview began to invade our culture because they were among the most helpless and unable to promote their own victimhood.
So in this debate when DougH tells you that you just don’t get it, by his rules you don’t. You just don’t realize it’s all about DougH.
January 30th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Gregg, I didn’t say you don’t understand that there is a difficult moral decision, However, words like “untenable,” “unvarnished unadulterated truth,” and “indefensible position” are the statements that prove the point I was making– that instead of engaging in a debate that acknowledges different beliefs, you are throwing your absolutism into debate-killing rhetoric.
If everyone agreed with you , there would be no debate and there would be no abortion, legal or otherwise. If you refuse to acknowledge a difference of opinion (or perhaps more precisely to spit on it and illegitimize it), then you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
I admire that you stick to your beliefs and I respect them, but calling your view the only right one, while it works for you, will get you nowhere in a truly Democratic society.
As to the post itself, I actually agree with your assessment of Romney– I would characterize him as an opportunist and even a flip-flopper in that sense.
The fundamental flaw in your “comebacks” statement is to put the statement in Pro-Choicers’ mouths characterizing abortion as murder. You’re putting your words in their mouths to show your version of their attitude rather than trying to actually understand why people think in different ways.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:11 am
In response to DougH and all others who think like him. If those same babies inside the womb were killed outside of the womb in the same manner…wouldn’t that be murder? Just because some judges say it isn’t murder doesn’t make it so. The main problem I have as an individual with Christian beliefs is that my tax money is used to commit murder and I never got to vote about the matter to let my voice be heard.
BTW, I’ve known about 4 women who had abortions and justified it at the time but were experiencing great emotional and physical problems afterwards. How is that looking out for women?
February 1st, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Doug,
Thanks for commenting. I always enjoy our conversations on the blog.
As to your statements:
You said: “Gregg, I didn??t say you don??t understand that there is a difficult moral decision, However, words like ??untenable,? ??unvarnished unadulterated truth,? and ??indefensible position? are the statements that prove the point I was making?? that instead of engaging in a debate that acknowledges different beliefs, you are throwing your absolutism into debate-killing rhetoric.”
No Doug, my use of the words,??untenable,? ??unvarnished unadulterated truth,? and ??indefensible position? were specifically chosen because they were the right words to acurately describe Romney’s position and others who claim to be both pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. And to accuse me of not “engaging in debate” is ludicrous since I have repeatedly asked you (read engaged you)to answer direct questions which you have failed to do.If anybody is having a “parralell” discusion without directly answering questions it has been you.
As to my “absolutism” that I am supposedly “throwing around into debate killing rhetoric” (whatever that is suppposed to mean), there is no “opinion” about “when life begins” as I have proven over and over. Irrefutable scientific facts cannot be “debated.” You can accuse me of being an “absolutist” as to when human life begins but it doesn’t change the fact that human life begins at conception and as I stated one cannot simultaneoously hold the
position that all human life should be protected by law (the pro-life position) and that the government doesn’t have the right to insitute laws which restrict abortion (the pro-choice position). The two postions are totally contradictory and as I said before “incongruous” and “untenable.” The truth by its very nature is absolute. I know moral relativists don’t believe in absolute truth on any level. But the fact that you consider me to be an “absolutist” doesn’t change the fact that the central premise of my original post is absolutely true. That is called the law of noncontradiction.
You said “If everyone agreed with you , there would be no debate and there would be no abortion, legal or otherwise. If you refuse to acknowledge a difference of opinion (or perhaps more precisely to spit on it and illegitimize it), then you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty.”
Doug, there have never been any point in any of our discussions where I have not acknowledged our “diffferences of opinion.” or “spit on it and illegitimize it.” I have always ackowledged your point of view and have been respectful of you personally as I try to be with everybody who comes to our blog to comment and share their thoughts. I have only demonstrated, at least in this case, that your point of view is not factually correct. Don’t confuse “intellectual dishonesty” with robust civil discourse. Intellectual dishonesty is when one person is distorting or twisting the argument intentionally to make a point which I have not done and don’t appreciate being accused of doing. I won’t hold it agiast you as it is clear you are confusing your terminology.
As to Julie’s comment:
She is 100% correct about the “great emotional and physical problems afterwar” an abortion routinely experienced by women that I document in my book:
“Abortion is never safe to the child and has been proven to result in significantly higher complications for the mother such as injuries to the uterus, cervix, urinary tract, infection (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease), hemorrhage, miscarriages, heart failure, embolism, sterilizations, ruptured intestines & bowels, coma, subsequent Ectopic (tubal) pregnancies, and in some cases death. Additionally, women who have abortions suffer mental health declines, while those who deliver their child actually have improved mental health.”
“Abortion can adversely affect later pregnancies. Research has found that women having abortions are more likely to have a low birth weight baby in a later pregnancy. There are also indications that having an abortion can increase you chances of delivering prematurely.”
“Having multiple abortions increases a woman chance of having a miscarriage in a later pregnancy.”
“All women, especially young teenagers are at risk for damage to their cervix during an abortion, which can lead to complications with later pregnancies.”
“Abortion can increase the risk for breast cancer. A review analyzing 23 studies on breast cancer and abortion states that 17 of these studies indicate an increased risk of breast cancer among women having an abortion.”
“The New England Journal of Medicine in February 2000 listed abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.”
“Women who ended their first pregnancy by abortion are five times more likely to report subsequent substance abuse than women who carried the pregnancy to term and four times more likely to report substance abuse compared to those whose first pregnancy ended naturally.”
“According to Research published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, many women experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following an abortion. In one of the longest running studies ever done which followed women after an abortion, researchers found that over time, negative emotions increased, including dreams and flashbacks to the abortion, numbing of responsiveness not present prior to the abortion, and difficulty sleeping. 28 percent of the women in the study said that they were either indifferent about or dissatisfied with the abortion and 31 percent said that were uncertain or would not have an abortion again.”
“As many as 60 percent of women experience some level of emotional distress following the abortion. In 30 percent of women, the distress is classified as severe.”
“Welch researchers examined abortion and suicide and found that ‘our data suggests that a deterioration in mental health may be a consequential side effect of induced abortion.’”
Gregg
February 6th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Great job, Gregg! Only one suggestion, please. Would you please say, “pro-abortion” instead of “pro-choice”?
It was when they used to say pro-abortion that they could not move their agenda forward. Maybe they went to one of those places where they do focus groups? I don’t know, nor do I care.
I do know, however, they are not in favor of any other kind of choice!
Thank you.