Did The "pro-life" Movement Permanently Change Because Of Romn

[southern california guy]

Romney supported abortions in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the mothers "health". And many "Pro-lifers" supported Romney -- even argued that he was "Pro-life".

The Roe V Wade decision supported legal abortions -- "To protect the mothers health".



Okay so the "Pro-lifers", the "Conservatives", the "Christians", the Republicans, supported the Republican candidate (Romney)... And they tried very hard to argue that Romney was a "Pro-lifer". At least they argued that he was [b]"MORE"[/b] of a "Pro-lifer" than Obama, or that he was [b]"LESS"[/b] "Pro-choice" than Obama.

My question is whether Romney's arguments in support of abortion (rape, incest, health) have rubbed off on the Christians and the Pro-lifers?

Are future "Pro-life" groups, religions, and such now going to argue that abortion should be legal for cases of rape, incest, and to protect the mothers health -- and abortion is only wrong when it's use is exclusively for birth control?

[Ice_nine]

I think it's more so that people are compromising in face of staunch opposition in hopes that some gains will be made. I do not think this is a wise m.o., but I don't think this changes the ultimate goals of the pro-life movement at large, it's just a disagreement about how we can reach these goals.

[Aloysius]

The pro-life movement knows full well what the "health" exemption means, which is why Romney's spokesperson was forced to correct his statement for pro-life groups. Pro-life groups absolutely remain opposed to the "health of the mother" exemption that is used to justify 99% of abortions, thankfully. I think it's pretty well established for candidates that they cannot permit the health of the mother exemption and still be endorsed by pro-life groups; the various ways that candidates who wish to obtain the pro-life vote without intending to actually do anything pro-life will attempt to skirt the issue are up for prediction... the pro-life movement is smart enough not to fall for the health-of-the-mother exemption being explicit, but they are susceptible to the type of subversion I believe Romney was attempting to do (but whether he was or not is besides the point now, it's still something to be on the lookout for in future candidates): which is to make a relatively meaningless official position while speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

the rape/incest/LIFE of the mother exemption ship is sailed pretty far a long while ago especially in terms of public opinion, I'm not sure we'll see any candidate able to hold firm on those. if we want to see a move in the right direction, we need to see it come out of something wherein we can believe that those will be the only narrowly defined exemptions; anything broader than that IMO constitutes zero substantial progress. that kind of narrow exemption would be progress, but anything more than it is not worth anything.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Aloysius

[eagle_eye222001]

The pro-life movement won't get mind-controlled to stand firmly on the Romney abortion stance, but they'll probably and sadly sell out again if a similar election occurs. How long it will take them to see the error of their ways......I don't know.


Would be nice if a pro-life candidate brought science into the picture and used natural law.

Ryan had a golden opportunity in his debate with Bide, but he basically surrendered instead with the Romney abortion plan that is basically as inconsistent as Obama and Biden's is.


You can't effectively argue for the pro-life cause when your exemptions are as inconsistent as your opponents.


Perhaps if a true pro-life candidate came out and used logic and was careful with his words, they would may still lose, but they would be a great evangelist to convert a few. The problem is that pro-life candidates seem to just state their awkward sounding position with subjective reasoning ( but my faith says....or I think....) instead of going for the direct "science says..." and leave it at that.

The pro choice movement yells at the top of their lungs its a CHOICE....but the pro-life people don't effectively counter.

Perhaps some candidates have done what I have said they should do, but I haven't seen it.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1352661304' post='2508164']
My question is whether Romney's arguments in support of abortion (rape, incest, health) have rubbed off on the Christians and the Pro-lifers?

Are future "Pro-life" groups, religions, and such now going to argue that abortion should be legal for cases of rape, incest, and to protect the mothers health -- and abortion is only wrong when it's use is exclusively for birth control?
[/quote]

Whatever Romney or other GOP politicians say is not going to influence the very heart of the pro-life movement. The movement is based on a strong moral conviction, not someone's political stance on the matter. Pro-life groups have been contending with politicians that promote social conservatism while holding a checkered stance on abortion for years.

Someone who has a strong enough conviction to organize, pray daily, protest or engage in other activism is likely not one to shrug it off and say "well, okay, we should make exceptions" -- especially because of, heaven forbid, something they heard from a politician!

Edited November 11, 2012 by Ash Wednesday

[Anomaly]

The pro-life movement is already compromised because they're already confused thinking abortion isn't taking a life, abortion is protecting the dignity of women, and pro-life is about giving contraception to prevent pregnancy and improving economic conditions so single women can afford to keep a child.

No anti-abortion politician will be elected because they will be labeled as anti-women. Face it, political discourse is mostly about generating dislike of your opponent.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Anomaly

[Aloysius]

what pro-life movement are you talking about? you sound like you're talking about the pro-choice movement, the pro-life movement certainly doesn't see abortion as protecting the dignity of women... you seem confused, I think you need a beer

the pro-life movement consists of groups like the National Right to Life Committee, Priests for Life, the Susan B Anthony List, Abolish Human Abortion, et cetera... the pro-life movement is just as strong as ever against abortion.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1352682467' post='2508314']
you seem confused, I think you need a beer

[/quote]
I think everybody needs a beer, all the time. The world would be a nicer place if everyone had a beer at lunch every day.

[Nihil Obstat]

Now that I commented, I feel obligated to contribute something to this thread.

I have a sort of moral intuition that, in by and large supporting Romney's campaign, the pro-life movement as a whole made a deal with the devil, and is going to pay for it now. I do not think this is an all or nothing kind of thing, so I will not say that the pro-life movement has fundamentally betrayed itself, or doomed its efforts for x number of years, but on a basic level I think that by allowing Romney to be 'their candidate', they did some damage to themselves.
There is compromise, and there is compromise. Mitt Romney pushed the pro-life community to its very breaking point, and at the moment it seems like he got away with it. As a community of principled people, we need to push back hard and not allow something like this to happen again. If we continue to allow compromises like this to be made, the damage will become more and more severe.
The coming years are incredibly important for Catholicism worldwide, but especially in the western world, and most especially in the US, and I think most of us will agree that the Church's witness is absolutely critical for the continued relevance of the pro-life movement. We are going to be tested now, and what is required of us is integrity and strength on a greater level than what has been the norm over the last few decades.

[havok579257]

the prolife movement fell apart a long time ago. they have the position that to avoid abortions we need to give contraceptions. they allow arguements of abortion being illegal except for incest, rape and health of mother.

honestly and i really mean this, there is only one true pro life movement that has any and I mean any chance of success and its the catholic church. the prolife movement made up of others has failed. no absolutes. the catholic church on the other hand has absolutes and does not stray. abortion is wrong in all cases and so are contraceptives which cause abortions. the catholic church will not go down and support abortion loving politicians who are pro life in limited circumstances. they will only support the idea that life is most important and there can be no exceptions. the prolife movement made exceptions. the catholic church does not. if all truely devote catholic united together we would be the true pro life movement that could make change. although that is the only true pro life movement left... the catholic church.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1352682467' post='2508314']
what pro-life movement are you talking about? you sound like you're talking about the pro-choice movement, the pro-life movement certainly doesn't see abortion as protecting the dignity of women... you seem confused, I think you need a beer

the pro-life movement consists of groups like the National Right to Life Committee, Priests for Life, the Susan B Anthony List, Abolish Human Abortion, et cetera... the pro-life movement is just as strong as ever against abortion.
[/quote]I was making the point that pro-choice people don't see their position as anti-life or pro-baby-killing. They see themselves as pro-life. They don't define it the same way as you.

[Aloysius]

ahhh I get what you mean. of course when we talk about the pro-life movement, we are obviously not talking about those people. but it is true that most people define themselves as pro-life, I saw a study in which there was a large overlap of people defining themselves as both pro-life and pro-choice; so in that sense, we've lost the terminology war.

but there's still a huge anti-abortion pro-life movement; and roughly half the population at least (if not more) wants abortion to be illegal except for rape/incest/life of the mother exemptions, of course they have varying degrees of importance that they place on this issue; the average man on the street member of the pro-life movement is susceptible to confusion when someone tries to introduce the "health of the mother" exemption, but the leadership of the movements all recognize that the health of the mother exemption would represent zero progress so I think the pro-life lobby is pretty solid on that front (recognizing that if the exemptions are limited to rape/incest/life of the mother then that means we have made progress even if it's not perfect); Romney didn't represent them capitulating on the health of the mother exemption, their reason for continuing to endorse Romney over Obama was all hinged upon the denial by the Romney spokesperson that he meant to say "health" of the mother, had they believed that he intended to say that, groups like the Susan B Anthony List said that they would have dropped their endorsement of him (yes, even against Obama, that's how serious using that language is to pro-life groups)

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1352663525' post='2508180']
The pro-life movement won't get mind-controlled to stand firmly on the Romney abortion stance, but they'll probably and sadly sell out again if a similar election occurs. How long it will take them to see the error of their ways......I don't know.[/QUOTE]...

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1352663525' post='2508180']Would be nice if a pro-life candidate brought science into the picture and used natural law.[/QUOTE]
Yes!

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1352663525' post='2508180']Ryan had a golden opportunity in his debate with Bide, but he basically surrendered instead with the Romney abortion plan that is basically as inconsistent as Obama and Biden's is.[/QUOTE]
Still did better than Biden.

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1352663525' post='2508180']You can't effectively argue for the pro-life cause when your exemptions are as inconsistent as your opponents.[/QUOTE]
But what about the healthcare rules and such? Were they really going to be the same?

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1352663525' post='2508180']Perhaps if a true pro-life candidate came out and used logic and was careful with his words, they would may still lose, but they would be a great evangelist to convert a few. The problem is that pro-life candidates seem to just state their awkward sounding position with subjective reasoning ( but my faith says....or I think....) instead of going for the direct "science says..." and leave it at that.[/QUOTE] Would they make more of a different converting a few and losing to a pro-choice candidate or being a pro-life candidate who makes it to office?

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1352663525' post='2508180']The pro choice movement yells at the top of their lungs its a CHOICE....but the pro-life people don't effectively counter.

Perhaps some candidates have done what I have said they should do, but I haven't seen it.
[/quote]
Agreed.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1352710057' post='2508533']
ahhh I get what you mean. of course when we talk about the pro-life movement, we are obviously not talking about those people. but it is true that most people define themselves as pro-life, I saw a study in which there was a large overlap of people defining themselves as both pro-life and pro-choice; so in that sense, we've lost the terminology war.

but there's still a huge anti-abortion pro-life movement; and roughly half the population at least (if not more) wants abortion to be illegal except for rape/incest/life of the mother exemptions, of course they have varying degrees of importance that they place on this issue; the average man on the street member of the pro-life movement is susceptible to confusion when someone tries to introduce the "health of the mother" exemption, but the leadership of the movements all recognize that the health of the mother exemption would represent zero progress so I think the pro-life lobby is pretty solid on that front (recognizing that if the exemptions are limited to rape/incest/life of the mother then that means we have made progress even if it's not perfect); Romney didn't represent them capitulating on the health of the mother exemption, their reason for continuing to endorse Romney over Obama was all hinged upon the denial by the Romney spokesperson that he meant to say "health" of the mother, had they believed that he intended to say that, groups like the Susan B Anthony List said that they would have dropped their endorsement of him (yes, even against Obama, that's how serious using that language is to pro-life groups)
[/quote]

The conflict I see is that if you argue that abortion is ok for cases of rape and incest -- are you only considering the woman. I know that it seems like a cold position. But is there a living baby inside the women who was raped or the victim on incest?

It's like the Roe V Wade debate. How do you balance the rights of the unborn baby to continue its life versus the rights of the mother -- to protect her "health". In the case of rape or incest, the "health" of the mother would be her mental health. It could be argued that if she had to carry the baby to term it would be emotionally very hard on her. And she had already been through something emotionally difficult.

When I moved to Utah I found that the popular accusation -- that the "conservatives" or "religious" (In this case Mormons) do not treat women with respect -- had a degree of truth to it. There is a lot of rape, and a lot of incest, by the Mormons in Utah. Even Marie Osmond was abused as a child. Rape and incest are power trips and seems that very controlling religions and religious societies create very controlling people. I'm a libertarian, if you wonder, and I believe in a small government and maximum liberty like the founding fathers of this country. So anyway there is another side to the abortion because of "..rape or incest". If you abort the baby then you can cover the whole situation up much more easily.

[Papist]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1352661304' post='2508164']
Romney supported abortions in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the mothers "health". And many "Pro-lifers" supported Romney -- even argued that he was "Pro-life".

The Roe V Wade decision supported legal abortions -- "To protect the mothers health".



Okay so the "Pro-lifers", the "Conservatives", the "Christians", the Republicans, supported the Republican candidate (Romney)... And they tried very hard to argue that Romney was a "Pro-lifer". At least they argued that he was [b]"MORE"[/b] of a "Pro-lifer" than Obama, or that he was [b]"LESS"[/b] "Pro-choice" than Obama.

My question is whether Romney's arguments in support of abortion (rape, incest, health) have rubbed off on the Christians and the Pro-lifers?

Are future "Pro-life" groups, religions, and such now going to argue that abortion should be legal for cases of rape, incest, and to protect the mothers health -- and abortion is only wrong when it's use is exclusively for birth control?
[/quote]
NO.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1352682837' post='2508322']
I think everybody needs a beer, all the time. The world would be a nicer place if everyone had a beer at lunch every day.
[/quote]
I'll vote for that.