Well, we have officially entered the silly season of the presidential campaign. And even the abortion issue has somehow got caught up in all the hyperbole and downright nastiness.
Take, for example, the latest outrage, at least according to press releases by the pro-life movement. Did you know, they scream in horror, that the president of United Airlines actually hosted a fundraiser for a Texas-based Planned Parenthood affiliate? OMG, what is this world coming to?
Then there’s the latest out of Hollywood, that den of iniquity whose residents support abortion up to the moment of high school graduation. It seems that the Obama campaign is actually “tapping celebrities” for his re-election effort and the pro-life movement apparently thinks it’s important for the American public to know that actresses Jessica Alba and Natalie Portman have joined Obama in his support for “abortion on demand.” Oh, the outrage! (And don’t get me started on Clint Eastwood)
On the macro level, the abortion issue has been the source of some very interesting – and disappointing – turn of events. Indeed, I must say how disappointed I am in the Obama campaign. Yes, you heard me right.
At this time, it is extremely clear (at least to me) that as President, Mitt Romney would outlaw all abortions unless the woman’s life was endangered or if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. Now don’t get me started on how abortion isn’t “murder” when it was the product of rape or incest. I still don’t get that rationale. But a few weeks ago, a commercial produced by the Obama campaign caught my attention. Accompanied by the usual foreboding music and grainy photographs reminiscent of the one of the Loch Ness monster, a voice says that “Romney Ryan” would outlaw all abortions except when the woman’s life was endangered. Yep, it says very clearly that Romney and running mate Paul Ryan have “both backed proposals that would outlaw abortions even in cases of rape or incest.”
This is an accurate reflection of Ryan’s position but, as for Romney, the Obama folks are pushing it.
What the Obama campaign points to is that at some point Romney also said he supports legislation that defines life as beginning at conception and that legislation is normally interpreted to be a ban on all abortions. Now, not to defend Romney, but he is not a smart guy and like so many others he gets tongue tied when it comes to the abortion issue. He clearly has not thought about the implications of defining when life begins in a legal sense because all of his other statements make clear he supports some exceptions. Even Mr. Ryan has acknowledged that he will support Romney on that one.
Romney’s obvious confusion about abortion was also in evidence when he recently said that he would ALSO support abortions if a woman’s “health” was endangered. As all pro-lifers know, that is the third rail of their movement because they believe you can drive a Mack truck through that “loophole.” They suggest that abortions could be performed if a woman had a headache, as it would affect her “health.” Indeed, I am shocked that I have not seen screaming press releases from the pro-life movement condemning Romney’s comments. Hello out there?
So, Romney is all over the board, like he is on so many other issues. But, getting back to the President and his team, I really think they are stretching it a bit. Romney has said over and over again that he supports rape and incest exceptions for abortion, despite his confusion about when life begins. He is just not a smart man. But the President is a smart man and he has no reason to play these kinds of games.
The commercial is misleading, Mr. President. You don’t need to go down that road and get in that gutter.
Related articles
- Mitt Romney’s Son Tagg Signed ‘Abortion’ Clause in His Surrogate Birth Contract (tmz.com)
- Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan seek distance from ‘legitimate rape’ remark, but records show narrow support for abortion (boston.com)
- Romney Statement on Abortion Appears to Contradict Ryan’s Earlier Position (thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com)
- Mitt Romney paid for son’s surrogate ‘abortion contract’, right to kill fetus (democraticunderground.com)
- Reproductive rights for me, but not for thee: Mitt Romney edition (washingtonmonthly.com)
- CBS’s Pelley Presses Mitt Romney: about Republican ProLife Platform and his own ProAbortion Views (catholicglasses.com)
- Akin Now = Ryan (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)



September 23, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Thanks for pointing out all the idiocy of the Romney/Ryan Personhood movement.
LikeLike
September 23, 2012 at 6:02 pm
My concern with Romney and Ryan is how easily they can be resolute in a no-abortion position to a flip flop position to Ryan supporting Romney’s more lenient position. What happens if Romney is president and then drops dead? Does Ryan go on a holy tear to return the US to the draconian era pre 1973?
And while I’d agree with Elena’s assessment of the idiocy of Romney/Ryan and the degree to which Obama’s campaign has stooped, I’d rather take my chances with Obama than with his bumbling rival.
LikeLike
September 24, 2012 at 5:06 am
Uh, uh, that’s Pat’s assessment.
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Then how do you take this? http://www.tmz.com/2012/09/20/mitt-romney-son-tagg-abortion-clause-surrogate-birth-agreement-contract-bill-handel/
This is a direct violation, (& the truth) so where do you stand?
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 5:15 pm
more killers’ helpers
LikeLike
September 24, 2012 at 9:05 am
And the fact is that, when it comes to the legality of abortion,, it’s basically up to the Supreme Court. The Congress will never make abortion illegal in this country. On the other hand, the next President is bound to have a few appointments to the Court and that’s where a Romney-Ryan if Romney drops dead Presidency could be very dangerous.
LikeLike
September 24, 2012 at 10:13 am
Ryan is a moron.
Obama has my vote, and all my friends’.
LikeLike
September 24, 2012 at 10:21 am
All your friends are weirdos too?
LikeLike
September 24, 2012 at 10:45 am
Doesn’t it bother you, John, that Romney used to be pro-choice? Do you think he is really committed to the cause? I think not. I think if he gets in, he’ll be like Reagan and Bush and just give you guys lip service…
LikeLike
September 24, 2012 at 11:11 am
Yeah, you’re right. Still, he’s a less-aggressive killers’ helper than Obama.
I just stuck a message on the back of my truck — Single Issue Voter.. Didn’t want to disappoint Kate, she’d expect no less.
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 9:43 am
A “less aggressive killer’s helper”, hmmmmmm. Now that’s an interesting reason to vote for someone. But, sorry, Johnny but it looks like Romney is conceding PA as he has generally pulled out. And down here in VA, Obama – the guy who wants mandatory abortions – is pulling ahead….
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Right again.
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 10:15 am
Check out this screwball!
Is anyone voting for the Romney/Ryan Circus?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/22/paul-ryan-obama-contraception-mandate_n_1906424.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Ryan’s ma boy.
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Oh, yes, Ryan’s my boy like Fr Dunkle says, Yes, you are my boy. Do me, boy.
LikeLike
September 24, 2012 at 11:57 am
For the Republicans, abortion in itself is not a big deal. They will make sure their wives and daughters (e.g., Rick Santorum’s case) will have access to safe and legal abortions.
However, they can get the aborticentric vote by dwelling on it– John Dunkle, the dean of the dysfunctional self-help movement which calls itself “pro-life,” has already proclaimed himself as a single-issue voter.
If they win, Romney and Ryan will reward him by giving him a voucher for health care coverage when they take away his Medicare. While he has the smarts at this point to shop wisely, it’s not going to be that easy when he’s 94and in full-blown dementia.
And he says so-called “pro-lifers” don’t have mental health issues.
LikeLike
September 24, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Chuck rarely fails to appoint (or whatever the opposite of disappoint is).
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 8:29 am
You might want to think about it, Mr. Dunkle…..
LikeLike
September 24, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Pat, it doesn’t make any difference exactly where Mittins claims he draws the line. He probably won’t veto anything that gets through an R-congress on this issue even if rape or incest allowances are omitted. But even if he did, that’s not the real problem. What he would do is appoint pro-life S.Ct. people (it is likely he would get two such chances). Roe-v-Wade would be overturned and states would be allowed to do whatever they want. Red states would likely outlaw most abortions and many will go the full personhood route (Mississippi voted it down, but that was by a popular vote, not a legislative action). Bottom line is that although the Obama campaign misrepresented Mittins apparent position, the real effect of his election would be what Obama warns.
Minor sidebar – a fish has a bigger brain and suffers more pain with a hook is in its mouth or is being torn loose than a fetus being aborted.
LikeLike
September 24, 2012 at 4:39 pm
sidebar — I don’t know how some of you killers’ helpers can bear this.
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 8:30 am
Sometimes I dine on butchered little baby bits.
It’s called veal….
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 9:45 am
I totally agree, David. Mittins???
LikeLike
February 10, 2014 at 6:09 am
, the predictions that he made, the criiscitms and predictions of his opponents, and I think it would be pretty clear who won that debate as tested by reality in the last 40 odd years. Best to treat him like an Unperson whose existence as been shot down the Memory hole. After all a paleontologist from Harvard proved he was wrong in 1981, no need to do any followup. I’m guessing that if Gardner or Sternberg or even James Flynn had died the NYT would cover that despite the fact that their research paradigms have lead nowhere. The reason is they have the CORRECT BELIEFS therefore they are worthy of respect. Jensen wasn’t refuted, therefore bringing up his work even in an obit opens up Pandora’s box and might jeopardize AA, so best to pretend he never existed.
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 3:43 am
You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear. She placed the shell to her ear and scaermed. There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is entirely off topic but I had to tell someone!
LikeLike
September 24, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Mitt Romney: A Corporation Masquerading as a Person for President
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 9:46 am
And he’s a “person” from the moment of conception…
LikeLike
September 24, 2012 at 4:17 pm
I know that the prolife crowd loves to talk about regret, as if it’s a certainty for all women. In part, I would agree that women may feel regret but not all women and certainly not the kind of regret that diminishes your capacity to lead a fulfilling life. I believe there can be regret even though a woman knows in her heart it was the right and the only decision. I say this with certainty of my own. I felt regret that I had to make a really tough decision. I still feel a twinge of sadness. But it was necessary. There were external pressures, social pressures that demanded only one path. My living arrangements and my financial status demanded only one path. Even my employment could have been jeopardized had I not chosen to do what I did. You see, I chose to kill my little girl, my little Mia, knowing the heartbreak I would feel yet knowing it was the only prudent choice. Her tender little life meant the world to me, but to others she needed to go.
I just had to tell my story. I hope you all think carefully about your vote.
LikeLike
September 24, 2012 at 4:42 pm
“Her tender little life meant the world to me, but to others she needed to go. ” — and the legal right to have someone else tortured to death was supposed to have empowered women?
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 7:16 am
There was no torture. Just death.
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 8:36 am
Davida, I have dealt with thousands of women who brought ruin onto themselves and their children for lack of control over their lives. The first thing I learned in my job was, “You can’t take care of the child until you’ve taken care of the mother.”
It was painful for you, but if you made the choice autonomously, you did it for a greater good. You can’t take care of the child until you’ve taken care of yourself.
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 9:21 am
“if you made the choice autonomously” At times, Chuck, you are deliberately illiterate:
“Her tender little life meant the world to me, but to others she needed to go.”
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 9:48 am
Thanks, Davida, but what do you mean that “to others” she needed “to go?” Did you want to keep her but “others” talked you into an abortion?
LikeLike
September 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Pat,
Page 1 in Embryology 101: Life begins at conception when the sperm and egg meet. It’s the simple truth.
LikeLike
September 24, 2012 at 6:35 pm
As Pat wrote, “we’ve entered the silly season” so we can now give thanks to the contribution thanks to “Your Friend”
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 7:28 am
What Embryology textbook, and cite the page, reads:
“Life exclusively begins at conception when the sperm and egg meet” . . . ?
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 8:38 am
Your Friend, please tell us what you have done to save any fetus from spina bifid a (most common cause: binge drinking around the 14th day of pregnancy, a time at which a woman doesn’t even know she’s pregnant).
Nice to know you’re concerned ABOUT “life.” What do you do to show your concern FOR it?
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 9:23 am
Don’t answer, YF, or you’ll find yourself on same merry-go-round I’m on.
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 9:50 am
Thanks, Your Friend, for sharing that “simple truth”. It’s so simple that the Supreme Court, in Roe V Wade, said they couldn’t answer the question of when “life” began. This all depends on what your definition of “life” is….
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 10:06 am
Yes, it depends on your definition of life and what you call ‘truth’ because truth is rarely so simple. Truth for YF is an unswerving allegiance to what she/he believes. It isn’t a sign that she/he cares about truth. It is a sign of dogmatism. And that dogmatic attitude, that sense of superiority as in the hegemony of American ideals, confuses caring about truth with caring about what you believe is certain. Unlike the child who deals in absolutes, most adults are prone to pick out shades of gray, unless ensnared by dogmatism.
An example might help. Truth in physics may be realized differently than truth in ethics or morality. Yet, truth is worth caring about, but it isn’t worthy of worship. So YF writes a simple truth about a zygote, implying that the value of pursuing the truth rests on the possibility of certainty. But certainty is a very dangerous myth, because when a person or group believes it has attained such certainty then that person or group potentially can exert great pressure or commit great harm against those who disagree with that person or group.
Truth is deeply normative. Most adults have a basic preference for truth. We want our beliefs to accord with reality, the way the world actually is. Instead, folks like YF want their beliefs to accord with their beliefs and not reality.
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 10:58 am
Oh comon, you guys. YF’s obviously right, for normal people. Even most of the killers know when life begins.
But not you killers’ helpers. Like Hitler you define out of existence the people you help to kill. Maybe that’s because you have more of a conscience than the killers have. Maybe.
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 2:26 pm
how does one define something ‘out of existence’? That doesn’t even make sense. Define all you want, it still exists. Duh!
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 5:49 pm
Hitler, Kate, called them unternenschlich (sp?), sub-human, Thus he defined Jews as people out of existence. You’ve done worse for young people. You’ve called them so many sub-human names I can’t keep up. When I point out how ridiculous one is, you switch to another.
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 9:11 pm
You don’t define people out of existence, John. You kill them. Defining is nothing. Killing is how to take them out of existence. Hitler knew that. You and your killer friends know that. They’ve taken out Dr. Tiller and those who died before him. You write as if English is important. Well, why not demonstrate that imperative by using the correct language? It’s what you and your killer buddies are all about. Define doctors as evil, as wanted or as murderers. But the definition doesn’t kill them. You and your gun-toting killer friends kill.
The truth sucks, don’t it?
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 4:12 am
What a mishmash.
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Any discussion of when life begins is irrelevant (yes, that word again, JD). When JD fishes successfully and then cooks the fish, he has killed life. Anyone who has every “put down” a pet has killed life. Squash a spider or ant in your kitchen? You’ve just killed (a Hindu friend of mine won’t do that – he picks them up and tosses them outside, which in sub freezing weather still kills them). A wart or a cancer tumor is alive. Even plants are life.
The issue is separate human life. Everyone draws the line someplace. For me its the viability line. JD draws the line just before he ejaculates, even though a sperm cell has only 23 chromosomes (as a teen, he probably had wet dreams, which must have had the same effect – insanity – as masterbation, per the nuns’ warnings).
Sidebar – Several threads ago, JD claimed “solo masterbation” was bad but he never really explained the “solo” limitation. I figured that out: his wife masterbated him as her best way to avoid vaginal sex with him.
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 5:54 pm
There’s so much crap here I can’t even begin. Rog, Chuck, Kate, come to my rescue. (Chuck, remember what I told you about worms.)
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 9:13 pm
oh, yes, run away instead of being a man and standing up to real arguments….
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Either way dunkle, I mean, under all the scrutiny how can you still hold the same never ending beliefs? I am not trying to say what i think is completely right, although a lot of people your age and from possibly your same, (relatively) or similar set of values as a human being, and not give in to such tyrannical ideologies.
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 4:20 am
More crap and mishmash. Can’t you guys ask a question with out hiding it in a pile of dung? Ask a question Kate, Smitty, Dave! Swallow your bile long enough to jot it down and hit “Post Comment.” (You’ll even find you breathe more easily.)
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 4:14 am
How can I? There’s little difference between this crap and your mishmash.
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 9:18 am
Oh, jeez, now the victim game of “how can I?”
I’m so defenseless that all I can do is whip out the name calling….the artless dodger
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 10:18 am
Now, now, Kate, you asked me to stand up to an argument. How can i respond to an argument I don’t understand. I blame that on your burying one argument in ten and surrounding the whole mess in lies, slanders, and libels. (You’re lucky I’m a sweet guy.)
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 1:01 pm
I wonder how much more stupidity can come from this MR campaign… even better what the debate will be…
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 1:02 pm
bloggingfem Says:
September 25, 2012 at 10:06 am
Yes, it depends on your definition of life and what you call ‘truth’ because truth is rarely so simple. . . . . . blah. blah, blah ad nauseum . . . . .
Ahh, what is truth? The age old question. It reminds me of a question a man posed to himself over 2,000 years ago.
“What is truth?” Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him. He is not guilty of any crime.” Jesus – the man accused – said he came to witness to the truth and that anyone who was committed to the truth heard his voice.
Who’s voice are you hearing Kate? Who’s truth are you believing?
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 1:13 pm
And so, boys and girls, goes the story about a guy names J.C.
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 1:25 pm
I don’t hear anyone’s voice. I leave auditory hallucinations to you and your kind. And I don’t believe in Truth with a capital T, as if there is only one truth. There are many truths in this world. Face it, JC does not have a monopoly on truth. If you think J-Dog is the only one who can speak a truth, doesn’t that seem like a slap in the face of those who believe in other faiths? Or do you even care?
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 2:06 pm
It scares me that you are such a lost soul but I’ll continue to pray for you. Oh, you don’t have to thank me.
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 3:52 pm
What an incredibly arrogant and ignorant comment to suggest that my soul is lost because I don’t confirm to your belief system.
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Arrogant, ignorant or ‘truthful’??
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Oh and by the way Kate – you never seem to be at a loss for words for those of us who don’t conform to YOUR belief system!! AND if I may say so, you usually do it with INCREDIBLE ARROGANCE and venom!!
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 4:36 pm
“INCREDIBLE ARROGANCE and venom!!”
Love the caps and the double exclamation marks.
BTW, how does one ‘do it’ with venom? Sounds kinky.
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Truth is what can be shown (for example by science or math) or witnessed. It is not necessary to personally be the witness or to have the necessary math/science training, but it is worthwhile to consider how the information comes to us. Truth can therefore change, thus the question “what is truth?”
Religion is not truth, it is belief. There is nothing wrong with belief – everybody has his or her own set of beliefs. But when one person attempts to impose his or her beliefs on another person, then trouble occurs. Changing belief is much harder than changing truth because belief is not based on any real information.
By implementing separation of church and state, our founding fathers allowed for multiple beliefs while essentially intending that laws be truth based. When anti-choice people want to impose their belief of when life begins (which they erroneously declare as truth) on pro-choice people, they are clearly violating the separation principle. The viability limitation is based on science, so it is truth based.
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 3:59 pm
If the value of pursuing the truth rests on the possibility of certainty, then YF is pursuing a very dangerous myth, because when a person or group believes it has attained such certainty then that person or group potentially can exert great pressure or commit great harm against those who disagree with that person or group.
As David has written, truth is objective. It portrays the world as it is and not as we may hope, fear or wish it to be true. We can control how we go about pursuing the truth by paying careful attention to the evidence, giving and asking for reasons, doing adequate research, remaining open-minded. Truth is worth caring about for its own sake.
We don’t want illusions of a beautiful world, we want the truth, warts and all. Truth is instrumentally good. (dollar bills are instrumental for getting things. But there is nothing valuable about the paper itself.)
Truth is deeply normative. We have a basic preference for truth. We want our beliefs to accord with reality, the way the world actually is.
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 5:25 pm
I’ll try to respond to the Dave/Kate speech here after I have my seventh martini. Cold sober it’s gibberish.
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 6:23 pm
OMFG
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 7:21 pm
What’s the F stand for?
LikeLike
September 27, 2012 at 2:22 pm
bloggingfem Says:
September 26, 2012 at 4:36 pm
BTW, how does one ‘do it’ with venom? Sounds kinky.
I imagine you ‘do it’ with venom quite frequently! hahaha
LikeLike