« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Abortion Debate Continues

By: Breeanne Howe (Diary)  |  October 12th, 2012 at 06:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Last night during the Vice Presidential debate, we were given quite the surprise when a question concerning a social issue came into play towards the end.  Martha Raddatz, the clearly partisan moderator, asked the candidates about their common religious faith, Catholicism, and how it affected their view on abortion.

Republican candidate Paul Ryan eloquently summed up that his Catholic faith isn’t the only factor as to why he is pro-life.  He listed, as the majority of pro-lifers would, reason and science as also backing the fact that all life is created at conception.  He went on to state that “the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.”  Vice President Joe Biden, going quickly from loud and angry to speaking barely above a whisper, said he “accepts (his) church’s position on abortion” and that the church’s judgement is that life begins at conception; not exactly a strong endorsement.  Biden added that while he has accepted the church’s stance in his personal life, he refuses to impose his belief on others that may not hold the same position.  The escape pod of supporting life personally but not wanting to force the belief onto others is a weak excuse with which most everyone in the pro-life community is familiar.  Logically  it doesn’t follow, of course, but logic usually isn’t found on the left side of the isle.

In this case, however, both men only expressed logic to various degrees.  Biden can’t truly believe personally that life begins at conception, and therefor killing it would be murder, but he can’t ask others not to murder.  Ryan, while excellently defending the issue of life, was in the precarious position of having to portray unity with Romney while privately believing otherwise.  Ryan personally believes that, aside for the life of the mother, there should be no exceptions for abortion.  Situations in which the life of the mother and the child are at risk are medical in nature and usually made with the guidance of a doctor, who is bound by his oath not to cause harm to anyone.  His dedication to his personal beliefs and remaining unified with Romney can be seen in the wording he chose to express the position of the campaign.  ”the policy of a Romney administration will be to….”  In fact it is Romney who believes that exceptions should exist for incest and rape.  However, those exceptions are not logical and are as cruel as any abortion.

For instance, imagine a woman with a three year old child.  Now imagine the woman stating that even after all this time, the child still reminds her of the man who raped her and causes her emotional pain with each glance.  Who of you would recommend the woman have her three year old killed because her plight is difficult?  The events that preceded the life that began in the womb should have no bearing on the value of that life.  Punishing the son for the sins of the father is not the standard of our great nation.

The Romney/Ryan ticket is a strong one and they will lead our country in the right direction to recover from the enormous damage the current administration has inflicted.  Ryan’s pro-life position, along with his other consistently conservative views, means he will be a champion for the unborn in the White House.  With him at our side, the pro-life community can rest assured that it will have a voice to help Romney and others see that ALL life is valuable and worthy of saving.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • jaykali

    Ryan’s answer was the best I’ve ever heard. Biden rambled some nonsense I barely remember.

  • dixiepaleocon

    Ryan should have pounced on Biden’s inconsistency. How can believe life begins at conception and not believe government has a right to protect that right?

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    Ah, but you forget that the point of the question wasn’t to debate the issue, it was to score points for the “war on women.” Ryan would have been cut off immediately if he had tried to go after Biden’s inconsistency.

    It saddens me that Romney throws a certain class of babies under the bus (and that Ryan goes along with it), but I am at least glad that he chose Ryan as opposed to a pro-choice candidate like Condi Rice.

  • Ausonius

    Must love the 16 cowardly trolls (so far) who voted against my comments! I was hoping somebody might want to defend Biden’s side! :)

  • The_Gadfly

    There is a logic to the rape and incest exceptions, and your example doesn’t counter it. In both these examples, if the mother is required by law to carry the child to term, she is being forced by the law to accept the will of another on her own body. If on the other hand, she initially chooses to birth the child, killing it 3 years later does not undo the period in which she acceded to carrying the child.

    Given human nature I would apply God’s divorce exception to these two situations: hate the divorce/abortion, and offer as much counseling and encouragement to continue the marriage/birth, but accept because of the hardness of some human hearts that the divorce/abortion is allowable.

  • The_Gadfly

    Now, now. We all know that while there might be small errors in your or my logic in defense of life, there is NO defense of Biden’s cowardly and immoral position.

  • zollistar

    I met a woman who conceived from a rape. The unwanted pregnancy was a severe test of the college sophomore’s pro-life convictions. She wavered, very briefly, but ultimately decided that while she couldn’t take on the responsibility of rearing a child (she was 19) she could give him or her birth and surrender the baby to a loving family via adoption. And she did.
    Speaking nearly five years later, she said the decision proved to be the most wonderful one she had ever made. Because it’s an open adoption, she not only sees her son regularly but the grateful adoptive parents treat — and view her –as beloved, extended family. Her son is growing up surrounded by love — hers, her own family’s love, and the adoptive parents and their family’s love.
    Likewise, the raped mother herself lives surrounded by love: her son’s, his adoptive parents’, and their entire family’s love as well as her own family’s love.
    Today the rape victime lives a paradox: the worst event of her life produced the greatest gift and joy of her life.

  • grumpyKoz

    “Biden added that while he has accepted the church’s stance in his personal life, he refuses to impose his belief on others that may not hold the same position.”
    Interesting that Binden will NOT impose his “beliefs? really” on others. BUT he WILL impose the beliefs of others on ALL.

    ObamBidenCare FORCES every U.S. citizen to pay for those that believe that abortion is a valid answer to the regressive society we are becoming. Whether one believes that a human starts at conception, is a human after 6 months, is a human after it exits the womb, or is a human only after it can support itself, ObamBidenCare is forcing you to pay for the selfish acts of men and women. Forcing everyone to pay for the killing of a human because it doesn’t FIT the lifestyle of the sire and dam.

    That is a path to social destruction if ever I saw one. GOD would believe that even the mother’s life should NOT be a reason for abortion. Life, meaning ALL LIFE is sacred. It is given to us by our creator, and is not to be trifled with.

    As a side point. 50%, statistically, of all aborted babies would be future women. How does that square with the ObamBiden “war on women” attack against RR?

  • dixiepaleocon

    My mother was conceived from rape. Should it have been legal for my grandmother to abort her (it was before Roe v. Wade)? Why should my mother’s life have been taken for a crime her father committed?

  • abl1000

    I’d like to see some of you explain to these 11 year old girls who were impregnated after they were raped why they have to carry out the pregnancy. Tell them you can’t terminate a pregnancy because its inconvenient. Tell them about how two wrongs don’t make a right. Or just recite to them the kind words delineated by the author of this
    thread “Punishing the son for the sins of the father is not the standard
    of our great nation.” How humane of you.
    Imagine your 11 year old daughter is raped/impregnated… how many of you would practice what you preach? Your little girl has been raped and is pregnant and you’re going to tell her she’s going to see the pregnancy through on top of that? And then what? You’re going to raise the baby or give your grandchild up for adoption? But these things haven’t happened to you, so they’re just anecdotal demagoguery- and it’s easy to sit back and say “The events that preceded the life that began in the womb should have no bearing on the value of that life” when its not your family/ body/ daughter at stake.

    http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/08/28/man-pleads-guilty-to-impregnating-11-year-old-girl/
    http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1254585.ece

  • Bill S

    A life is a life, no matter how it was conceived.

  • JX12

    The next time someone tells you they’re against abortion personally, but do not wish to impose that personal belief on others, ask them why. Simple question. “Why do you personally oppose abortion?” And stop there. And wait for their answer.

    There’s really no compelling reason to oppose abortion (personally or otherwise) based on practical or clinical considerations. True & honest personal opposition to abortion would almost certainly have to be based on a conscientious component – which essentially narrows one’s reasoning down to one primary consideration: the deliberate taking of a life is involved. If indeed this is the case, then one is forced to conclude that the individual whose life is being deliberately taken is either (a) a necessary sacrifice in defense of another individual’s life (the mother in this case), or (b) a victim of murder. Since scenario “a” would typically be a rare exception, this leaves us with the rule – scenario “b.”

    Long story short – it is my belief that one is unlikely to be personally opposed to abortion unless their conscience has compelled them to take this position due to an underlying belief that a life is, in fact, being wrongfully snuffed out – whether they want to admit this belief or not.

    It’s all downhill from there, because opposition to murder necessarily forces one to the conclusion that declining impose his personal beliefs about abortion on others amounts to making exceptions for his opposition to murder. Not a compelling case for a pro-choice position.

    Let’s be honest. The U.S. has – for nearly 40 years now under the umbrella of Roe vs Wade – been carving out exceptions to our laws against murder for the sake of personal convenience. People who say they are personally opposed to abortion but don’t want to enforce that belief on others are – at best – equivocating, and, more likely, are lying (at least to themselves, if not to everyone else).

    It it my considered opinion that pro-choice is, in reality, pro-abortion, and there’s not much in between. You’re either for it or you’re not.

  • jazzycmk

    The rape / incest exceptions are a tough one.
    I’ll put my pro-life chops up against anyone, and I grapple with that one. Yes – every child deserves to be born. But (especially as a man) I can’t imagine the emotional pain of carrying a child conceived under those circumstances (much less raising him / her as your own child).
    Now speaking from a purely political standpoint – this argument has become a convenient liberal / pro-abortion wedge issue. In terms of pure math, what % of all abortions are from rape / incest? There are not good statistics on the matter, but even the highest I’ve seen place it at 0.5%. So let’s keep our eye on the other 99.5%.
    Now on a more general note – if you really want to mess with the noodle of a pro-abortionist, ask them how they think God feels on abortion. That’s thrown a bunch of my liberal friends for a loop. They usually stammer, and eventually admit God would not be in favor of it (except for the one lady I talked to who was an atheist. She grinned and said she wouldn’t know. Kind of funny actually).

  • fightnright

    re: “anecdotal demagoguery”:

    Your own argument is an appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy. It’s no different than arguing that a murderer whose family entirely depends on him for nurture, food and shelter should not be jailed.

    The pro-life argument is rooted in biological science, that a human life begins at its conception, and a foundational philosophical precept of our culture, that we cannot murder another human.

    If you want to make the claim that a pregnant woman’s rights trump that of the unborn human she is carrying, then you need another, more logical argument – not another appeal to emotion.

  • streiff

    twisting your panties into a wad is not really an argument. I was going to go through this and identify the errors of logic. Then I decided, anyone who is in favor of killing babies for the sake of convenience couldn’t possibly object if their account was terminated for the same reason. So I did. Consider that I just prevented an 8 year old RedState from carrying you to full term.

  • satchman3

    If you believe the unborn fetus is a life deserving of the same protections as anyone else then I don’t see how you can make this argument.

  • http://colorado.mediatrackers.org/ Aaron Gardner

    “But these things haven’t happened to you, so they’re just anecdotal demagoguery”

    So, you were raped and impregnated at 11 then?

    Clearly your life experiences far out weigh any that may have occurred to any of the posters of RedState, or their family.

    I realize you’ve been aborted from RedState, but I am going to link you to this post regardless.

    http://www.redstate.com/aarongardner/2012/08/20/rape-abortion-and-the-moral-high-ground/

  • streiff

    Correct. The two positions are contradictory. Though as a staunch pro-lifer I will say this. I will give the pro-aborts the rape/incest exception if they give me the rest AND if each of those exceptions is accompanied by an arrest warrant for the father of the child.

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    Exactly streiff. Exactly.

    I’ve heard lots of muttering about how rape/incest accounts for about 4% of abortions and IMO that’s probably high by a factor of 10.

    Require a police report, a rape kit in the instance of a rape, and an arrest warrant immediately in the case of incest. If the charge is found to be false for the purpose of getting an abortion, a felony murder warrant against the “mother” is appropriate.

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    Hard cases make bad law.

    First of all, who’s to say that your mother’s life would have been taken? Do you know your grandmother would have aborted her?

    Second, and to the specific point of the argument, approximately 1.5 million unborn babies are murdered every year by abortionists. Assuming 4% of those are because of rape or incest (see above, I believe the number to be less than 1%) that’s 60,000 unborn babies. That means 1,440,000 babies are murdered in the name of convenience.

    If the only thing that stood in the way of banning abortion outright was an exception for rape and incest (and the physical life of the mother) are you willing to sacrifice 1,440,000 for the sake of 60,000?

    While I don’t like the choice, I find it to be a no-brainer.

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    I will, painfully, give you an exception for rape, incest and the physical life of the mother. Only requirement is that the crime is reported to the police and a perp, either through direct testimony of the victim or DNA, is identified and an arrest warrant is issued.

    Now then, are you planning on signing up to protect the lives of well over one million unborn children who butchered each year for the sake of convenience?

  • Viet71

    This discussion is needless.

    Repeal Roe v. Wade, you youngsters.

  • jamesm

    As the a father with daughters here is what I think. I would have no qualms of immediately taking the life of the rapist. So in that case I am pro-death for the perpetrator. I am pro-life, but in this case, I would make sure the seed of the rapist would not lead to conception. If somehow that would happen I would have no qualms about my daughters choice to not carry to term. There is no way in hell I would want that rapist to have a child thru my daugther. So yes I agree with a rape/incest exception but it would have to truly be a “rape” or “incest” The point is not the exception but punishing the offender to the fullest. In all acts of consent I am absolutely opposed to abortion.

  • streiff

    you realize the US Supreme Court has ruled the death penalty for rapists unconstitutional. So you are proposing condemning an innocent child to death while the criminal continues to live.

  • jamesm

    No. I would take out the rapist.

  • notsofast

    Having one of my children raped would be incomprehensibly painful, not only for me, but also for my daughter. If a pregnancy resulted from such a horror, that would also be very difficult. However, that child, no matter the intentions or vile behaviors of its father, no matter the violence and evil its father perpetrated, would be innocent of wrongdoing. What’s more, the child would be half my daughter. Her likeness would be there. Those facts alone would be reason enough for keeping the baby. There are no excuses for the behavior of a rapist, but using murder as a salve for the pain of rape is wrong, as well. All these things aside, using the potential for conception as the result of rape as an argument for keeping abortion legal is not solid reasoning. All credible statistics regarding the number of abortions performed due to conception during rape prove that the number of babies aborted due to rape is miniscule in comparison to the number of rapes performed each year. Since Roe v. Wade became law in 1973, nearly 60 million babies have been murdered through abortion. Only a tiny number of those slaughtered were the result of rape and every one of them was entirely innocent. On average, abortion has claimed the life of nearly 3 children every minute of every day for the last 39 years. That’s inexcusable. This is in the U.S. alone. If the total number of abortions across the globe is included, the numbers are even more staggering. Would it be hard to help my 13 year old daughter carry through a pregnancy caused by her rapist and then help her raise the child? Absolutely. Would killing the baby be right, regardless of the circumstances? No. The Bible makes that clear and genuine love would prevent such a selfish act. Whose pain would be spared by aborting the baby? Mine and my daughter’s, certainly, but not the baby’s. That’s the truest definition of selfish. Willfully cause pain to an innocent victim to escape pain to oneself. Think of that. The baby is a victim of the rape, too. The baby, no matter how loved by her mother or grandparents, will never know the love of her father, because he was too selfish to properly respect the sanctity of sex and human life. How self-centered, indeed. I’m not saying there are any easy answers to this situation, but murder certainly isn’t an option.

  • notsofast

    Please excuse me for the error, but the line I typed “All credible statistics regarding the number of abortions performed due to conception during rape prove that the number of babies aborted due to rape is miniscule in comparison to the number of rapes performed each year” should actually read “All credible statistics regarding the number of abortions performed due to conception during rape prove that the number of babies aborted due to rape is miniscule in comparison to the number of abortions performed each year.” I apologize for the mistake.

  • zollistar

    I know a woman whose mother was conceived from a rape. Her grandmother was a nun, the rape committed by a soldier. Almost all the nuns in that convent were raped by soldiers (this was during WWII) but her grandmother is the only one who conceived.

    The nun bore her child; her family reared the baby.

    Life is often messy, even sordid. We do not always behave our best.
    But abortion is particularly sordid. The victim has an opportunity to behave far better than she may have expected she could or would.

  • zollistar

    Keep in mind that by helping your daughter (should such a thing occur) deal with the aftermath of the rape would be in many ways healing — another paradox.

    A friend who works a pro-life table at Grand Central in NYC told me that a young woman came by and looked and read all the material. She was there for almost 15 minutes. Then she told my friend her story:

    She had been raped and conceived. Her parents supported whatever decision she wanted to make. She opted for an abortion, encouraged by the doctors and everyone else, although was was somewhat ambivalent.

    Years later she regrets a decision made, someone might say, “in necessity and sorrow”.

    No woman I have met (or read about) who bears her child in these circumstances regrets that decision. But I have personally met one post-abortive rape victim who deeply regrets that decision. My friend at the pro-life table says she has met several.

    I bet there are more. I merely recount my own experience.

    Extreme generosity enjoys special rewards that often are not obvious during a time of angst or stress. We are always wise to encourage and support generosity.

  • wbcoleman

    I missed Martha Raddatz’s bias. She was not a problem.

    Although Ryan gave a fine performance generally, he flubbed the abortion question. Raddatz asked him to relate his Catholicism to his position on abortion, and that required a twenty second response. There was no need to step into anything else.

  • Breeanne Howe

    As the mother of three girls, I have no doubt that I will sometime in the future, no matter what the circumstances, be sharing with them that their births were the greatest blessings God has given me. If they were around the age 11, they would probably be confused if tried to tell them that murdering the unborn child is an option because as they (correctly) understand it, murder is wrong. As for it not being my family/self at stake, you are wrong. It would be my future grandchild at stake, and I would raise the child myself with great joy should I need. You would be wise to talk to women who have been in these circumstances, as I have, you may find your opinion to be changed by those that have been there and chose to give their children life.