Romney Achieves First Prolife Political Win of Campaign!

Romney Achieves First Prolife Political Win of Campaign! August 21, 2012

Gets Really Truly Deeply Catholic Veep candidate to partly renounce prolife convictions for the sake of  party needs!:

Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s strong views on abortion took a back seat to his new boss’s view in a Romney-Ryan campaign response to a Missouri Senate candidate’s controversial remarks about rape and abortion.

The statement on behalf of Ryan and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney said the pair would “not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”

The occasion of this perfectly predictable trimming of Catholic conviction to suit Romney’s cynical disinterest in abortion was a GOP congressional candidate in Missouri named Todd Akin babbling like a buffoon:

Rep. Todd Akin suggested to St. Louis station KTVI on Sunday that if a “legitimate rape” occurs, “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

The Romney campaign, which deeply wishes for the question of abortion to just go away, and whose head built his entire political career by standing atop a mound of dead babies in Massachusetts, responded swiftly to Akin’s poltroonery by making sure everybody knew that in any contest between the Catholic Ryan’s convictions about the sanctity of human life and the immediate and expedient needs of the Romney campaign to keep the question of abortion as far as possible from itself, Ryan’s convictions would be trampled underfoot and he would grin and like it–as should all Catholics and prolifers who delude themselves about “keeping Romney’s feet to the fire” as they again allow themselves to be exploited and get virtually nothing in return from this supremely cynical manipulator and empty suit.  Basic message: Party Needs Before Principle–Always.

Meanwhile, prolifers capable of thought instead of mere panic at Akin’s imbecile and embarrassing remarks, such as Serrin Foster of Feminists for Life, actually said what Romney should have said if he had any actual interest in the question of abortion beyond “How can I exploit prolife suckers without having to stand too close to them?”:

 When someone asks about abortion exceptions for rape and incest, we must also consider the feelings of those who were conceived through sexual assault.

Well-meaning statements can hurt. As one UC Berkeley grad student said to her pro-choice peers, “I have a right to be here.” They responded, “We didn’t mean you!” She asked, “Who did you think you meant?”

My mother told this story to a co-worker who agreed and said, “People never think they are talking to an exception — like me.”

We don’t discriminate based on parentage — that’s not equality. You are valuable no matter who your parents are, no matter the circumstances of your conception.

All people are equal. All choices are not.

People used to value a woman based on who her father or husband was. It is similarly medieval to value a child by the actions of her father. That way of thinking is patriarchal and antifeminist, and it should have passed away with the Dark Ages.

Abortion after rape is misdirected anger. It doesn’t punish the perpetrator of the crime or prevent further assaults against other women.

Feminists for Life’s priority is keeping women safe. Incarcerated sexual offenders should not be allowed pornography, barbells, and early release. We need harsh sentences for sexual assault, without possibility of parole.

We need comprehensive support for rape victims who become pregnant. A convicted rapist should never have paternal rights or be able to demand visitation from “his” children while in prison. But if he has the means, he should contribute child support. If a woman is poor and cannot prove the paternity, she could have problems collecting welfare. Small employers could fire her. We need to listen to those who have had children conceived through sexual assault and work for short- and long-term solutions that benefit both children and mothers.

Feminists for Life is a proud supporter of the Violence Against Women Act. In fact, we were the only pro-life group active in the National Task Force on Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence.

After a lecture at a Midwestern university, a student pulled me aside. She told me that she had been raped by her third cousin when she was 13 years old and had become pregnant. Her parents had helped her have the privacy she wanted during her pregnancy, and then she placed her son with two loving parents.

I asked her why she had made the decision to have the child — when she was only a girl who had lived through what was arguably the worst of circumstances. She said she would never pass to her own unborn child the violence that had been inflicted on her. Now that is the strength of a woman.

Evaluate your party in light of the Church’s teaching, not your Church’s teaching in light of Party Needs.  Otherwise, expect more of this.

""Do you think those baptisms were valid?"Even if they were invalid, it would put the ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"I take it that you think that people in Hell do not suffer or, at ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"You wrote:Veteran of corporate America at its finest. :) I'm grateful the sharp objects and ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"I'm aware modern Catholics take a more abstract view of Hell than their terrified predecessors. ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • wqe

    Mitt forced a women to give away child after mormon soft rape ! Mitt is a lifetime Mormon cult servant, Sunday teacher , priest. This RAPE language also contained in a abortion bill Ryan co-sponsored last year.

    Mitt can never separate religion form politics. religions was business life for Mitt. President Mitt the priest is middle east age like…just many more crusades…

    Mitt doesn”t fit.

    • Chris M

      I think my nose just started bleeding from trying to make sense of that.

  • Shannon

    “Evaluate your party in light of the Church’s teaching, not your Church’s teaching in light of Party Needs. Otherwise, expect more of this.”


  • Jonathan

    I really think Mr. Akin’s comments deserve at least some sort of context. I’m not saying his comments are okay or even excusable–in fact, I quite suspect the opposite. However, it is impossible for me to take you seriously on matters of politics when you drop meaningless (by themselves) one-liners in an attempt to discredit your political adversaries.

    Just because you successfully avoid partisan tribalism, doesn’t mean you are avoiding tribalism or bias altogether. Your Akin comments are a perfect example. The Paul Ryan vs. Bishops jab was another. You have plenty of legitimate reasons to lampoon these guys. You don’t have to start acting like a shill for the “all of them are hacks so don’t vote” political party.

    • Mark Shea

      There is no such party, so it’s dumb to talk about being a “shill” for it. And why does there need to be “context” for Akin’s stupid remark when even you yourself acknowledge it is indefensible?

      I’m not saying “Don’t vote for the Sucks Less ticket”. I’m saying “Don’t subordinate your faith to Party Needs.”

      • Hi, Mark–gotta agree pretty wholeheartedly with you here–and in some sense I think the fact that the Catholic Ryan doesn’t achieve consistency with the abortion issue is very nearly a “sucks more” variable to the equation. It seems somehow worse when a Catholic who should know better is subordinating Church teaching to the politicial winds…

        God bless you,

        Deacon JR

      • Jonathan

        I didn’t say the comments were indefensible. I suspect they’re are in fact quite bad, but I have no way of knowing with only the information you have given. Which, you’ll notice, is exactly what I have said already.

        We all have predispositions. We all have biases. All of us. We don’t have to follow one of two party lines in order to be enslaved to them.

        There are plenty of straight-forward reasons for being disappointed in today’s politicians. Abortion, sadly, is one of those reasons. Sadly, it’s a reason that applies to both sides of the ballot. Torture is one of them–provided you actually explain why waterboarding and sundry other tactics qualify as torture. CCC 2297, of course, makes this clear.

        A one-liner from a politician who spends 500 hours per day talking is not one of them. The only people who pay attention to those looking for a “gotcha” moment to make someone look bad. It’s not relevant in the big picture. It just isn’t. I’ve said worse, completely by accident, and not meaning a word of what I said, just meaning what I meant to say.

        If you are trying to convince us to put faith ahead of politics, then really, the rest of your post does that just fine. You don’t need to add throwaway quotes with zero context.

        • Mark Shea

          I didn’t say the comments were indefensible.

          Sorry I misjudged you. You are even more confused than I thought. Just to be clear, his comments were morally indefensible, for reasons that a number of women readers have already expounded clearly. What is not morally indefensible is the proposition that children conceived in rape are not worthy of being murdered in cold bold.

          Romney could have, if he had the slightest interest in the unborn beyond their utility in getting himself elected, have made that case. Instead, he forced his prolife Catholic Veep to prostitute his convictions for Party Unity and now prolifers are, as has been their custom for 30 years, finding ways to make excuses for that. The consoling myth that “once they are elected, we’re going to hold their feet to the fire” is one of the most enduring delusions of the prolife movement. This little episode is just a foretaste of what to expect. Or perhaps an aftertaste of what we’ve done for 30 years.

  • victor

    One of two parties will win this election. If one of the two parties wins, I will have to eat five pounds of dog poop. If the other of the two parties wins, I will have to eat ten pounds of dog poop. Why again am I not supposed to hope that the party that will win the election is the one that will only require me to eat five pounds of dog poop?

    • Scott W.

      Because the only one that can consent to eating dog poop is you.

      • victor

        Uh, you have seen the guys with the guns, right? They’re called police. Stop paying your taxes and see how much they value your consent then.

        • Scott W.

          Who said anything about not paying your taxes? Yes, people can point a gun at your head and try to force you to do something immoral, but as St. Dominic Savio said, “Death before sin.”

        • Chris

          Um, yeah…

          And exactly how does that have anything to do with which version of the national suicide management group is elected?

  • SpasticHedgehog

    I am too terrified to google: what is a “Mormon Soft Rape?”

    • str

      Don’t bother. The only three instances you will find are this one here and two of the exact same mumbo, which somehow amount to the claim that Republican wage a war on women.

      • Ted Seeber

        Goosh couldn’t even come up with ONE instance. I think it’s just a troll.

  • victor

    I personally can’t wait for the 1st Mormon Crusade (2013-2015). It’ll be so nice to finally be able to visit Jerusalem or Istanbul and have everyone there be as friendly, courteous, and well-dressed as… well, as Mormon missionaries.

  • Karen

    Go read the Patheos blog Feminsmxistianity. She notes that Akin referred to ” the rapist” – a person – “the child” – also a person– but “the female body” – a thing. Why no discussion of the woman?

    • DTMcCameron

      I guess, separating things almost like a Manichee, the body and soul together make up the composite being of the person, whereas the body alone might be called a thing, and the soul alone…I don’t know what, exactly.

      Don’t know what sort of fellow might say, “You shot my body, but you didn’t shoot me.”… Transcendentalists, maybe.

  • Confederate Papist

    What did Akin say that was so wrong?

    Aside from the “body shutting down (?!?!?)” comment, which admittedly is incorrect, there are “illegitimate” rapes. 16 year old hunnies of progressive parents who let them date whomever they want, dress however they want, and their 18 or 19 year old boyfriends doing the “deed” and little hunny gets pregnant, which then pisses off and wakes up sleeping daddy…who then calls the cops and has the boyfriend arrested and charged for STATUTORY RAPE (even though the “deed” was consensual). Most times they get convicted and then have to register as a child predator. By any stretch of the imagination am I condoning this, but there are many instances where workplace “rapes” happen that are not legitimate (turns out he was married and she’s pissed about it), he’s famous and wants a one night stand and she wants to be the famous girlfriend…I hear some crazy stuff and I cannot believe that no one has said anything along these lines at all. Too much of a hot potato I guess. I’ll take the heat….I’m not running for office.

    • jolly

      I also am confused on the controversy. I assumed when he said “legitimate rape” he meant an actual rape and not a situation where the woman is lying about what actually happened. I honestly am confused about the outrage- is it just a word association problem that the public has and they don’t understand what the words actually mean?

      • victor

        I don’t know what all the fuss is about, either. Perhaps we should ask a survivor of a “legitimate” holocaust or a family member of a victim of a “legitimate” terror attack.

        • Confederate Papist

          Victor. I get what you’re saying. Some jackass forcing himself on a woman and impregnating her is rape….some gold digger or 16 year old feeling her oats with her 19 year old boyfriend is not.

          There’s a reason why Billy Graham was never alone while he was a public figure for the same reason.

          Check out your local law enforcement’s predator registry for how many of these offenders were statutory rape convictions. When late 20th and early 21st century parenting consists of Entertainment Tonight, TMZ and Cosmo, is anyone surprised that situations like this occur?

          • Kristen inDallas

            Be careful with the “statutory rape isn’t real rape shtick” Sure it’s different, and depending on the age/maturity of the offender it *might* (sometimes) be considered forgiveable. But there is a very good reason we have made it illegal and a very good reason we call it rape. 15-16 year old children (boys and girls) are still very easily manipulated. They believe words like “i love you” without question, they aren’t very good at sensing ulterior motives, and they are more susceptible to intimidation/threat even if the threat is subtle or unsaid. And adult (and you can dispute the age when someone is *really* an adult) who ought to know this and uses their expirience and people-manipulation skills on someone much younger is as guilty of rape as someone who intentionally drugs or takes advantage of an inebriated or naturally mentall-incapacitated person is. I’m not saying that minor-minor sex falls in that category, and I get that qualifying minor is a very moving target. But saying yes is not the only requirement for sex to be considered consentual.

            • Steven

              But the age of the “perp” matters as much as the age of the victim in these cases, doesn’t it? 36/16? Throw the book at him. 21/16? Kinda creepy but … rape? 19/16? I’m sorry, that’s just two teen-agers being stupid.

            • Confederate Papist


              And agreed with Steven too.

              Again, mommy, daddy, or the scorned teeney-bopper-who-got-bopped can use that terminology any time they want, regardless of whether it’s true and they’ll always win.

          • Dan C

            I do not know the jurisdiction that claims a 16 yo with a 19 yo is rape. I do not believe such a state exists. Particularly in the South. I saw today a 16 yo and a 32 yo. Actually, in our jurisdiction, not statutary rape at all.

            I think it is a fantasy to pretend there is a “legitimate rape” function. What people often try to downplay in such cases is incest as not “legitimate.” Why is this still a subject of discussion?

    • victoria

      Yeah, the legitimate/not-legitimate idea is really problematic — the idea that some rapes are more equal than others. But the thing that most riled people up, I think, was the implication that if a woman was raped and then got pregnant, then she wasn’t really raped. Which is completely divorced from reality, of course; women get pregnant after brutal assaults that would meet every stereotypical definition of rape you can think of.

  • There is no surprise here. Everyone who wanted Romney to be the GOP nominee got just what they asked for. The surprise is that the unmasking came so soon after the selection of a running mate. Anyone who thought this would not happen, whether sooner or later, was engaging in wishful thinking.

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  • How this for”trimming” your pro-life beleifs? Romney on Meet the Press in 2002 “I am 100% pro choice!”
    Watch video here:

    • I’m not a huge fan of Romney, but in his defense regarding your comment. In 2002, I was ardently 100% pro-choice as well, despite having been Catholic since 1999. Somewhere around 2007-2008, my continuing conversion to Catholicism erupted in a realization of what I advocating for, and over the course of a couple of years became 100% pro-life.

      I’m not saying Romney has had a similar conversion. I’m just saying, a lot can happen in 10 years.

      • Mark Shea

        You are right, of course. However, when Romney holds fundraisers at the home of the guy who makes the morning after pill just a couple of months ago and only undergoes a “change of heart” at the exact moment he needs to appeal to a national base of prolife Republicans, it is only common sense to assume he is a fraud. This just cements that very sane impression.

  • Scott W.

    There is a reason why pr0-abortion and homosexualism is permanently entrenched in the Democratic party: they would rather their candidates lose than let them stray from the agenda. Meanwhile, GOP fans continue to make excuses for these Sucks Less candidates. Really guys, the moderates are so alienated by Obama that they will walk on their knees through glass to vote for something else, even a trained monkey. There is absolutely nothing to lose by being strong on abortion and everything to lose by being wishy-washy.

    • Ted Seeber

      I am neither sure that it is permanently entrenched, nor that in all cases the Democrats would rather their candidates loose than tout the party line on this. There are a few pro-life Democrats left, though not many.

      • Scott W.

        It’s a generalization to be sure, so please don’t qualify it to death because it is a good generalization. Yes, there are pro-life Democrats–and every election year they are put in front of a camera like Hannibal Lecter being rolled into court on a dolly so the Democrats can say, “See! We have pro-lifers!” and then promptly shuffle them off the stage and told to shut up for the rest of the election.

    • I would argue that Romney is being wishy-washy because he’s not really pro-life at all and wishy-washy is the best act he can put on at this point to uphold the fiction that he’s pro-life. If he’s elected, he’ll go on being wishy-washy in public while naming a myriad of David Souter types to the bench and removing pro-life folks from the shell of the GOP. After four years of Romney, abortion rights will be so firmly entrenched in the judiciary, it won’t be rooted out for generations and the Republican party leadership will be showing open contempt for pro-lifers. I hope I’m wrong, but just look what happened in Massachusetts. Everything that Romney claims to be against now (socialized medicine, abortion-rights laws, coercion of Church institutions, gay marriage) happened on his watch.

  • Debra

    The reason people are bothered by it it quite simply because his comments would lead to the assumptiOn that if a woman is pregnant and claimed it was rape, she must be lying! How hard is that to figure out? Have women ever falsely claimed rape? I’m sure some have. Is it true that a woman can’t become pregnant as a result of rape or that is she did, her claim must necessarily be false? Absolutely not!

    Meanwhile we have long known Ryan’s pro-life stand is far stronger than Romney’s, and we know Romney is number one on the ticket, not Ryan. So that the team is going forward with Romney’s view is a surprise to what thinking individual?

  • Debra

    Meanwhile I’m also terribly disturbed at Akins’ attempt to redefine rape, which Ryan supported, to make it more difficult to use federal funds for abortion under the Hyde Amendment.

    Now I’m all for killing federal funding for abortion. However, I’m not willing to reclassify date rape, rapes committed using a knock out drug, and statutory rape as non crimes to do so.

    • Kristen inDallas

      THANK YOU! was begining to wonder if no one else was disturbed that our culture keeps telling us the only choice is between killing babies and being downright nasty to rape victims. Ummmm… yeah.

    • Peggy R

      I’ve been thinking about what Akin may have meant by “legitimate” as well. I know he and Ryan sponsored a bill in which “violent” rape was to be given tougher sentences than I guess a rape that is not as violent. For example, a rape or incest can be seductive, slow. No hitting, etc.

      Just a theory.

      • Peggy R

        My other theory is that Akin means legitimate in a way that Phyllis Schlaffly says there’s no rape in marriage, by definition. Again, just a guess…

  • beccolina

    Thank you for posting Serrin Foster’s piece. I’ve often thought of the horrid logistics that would happen if all abortion were illegal, except in cases of rape. Would the woman have to agree to press charges to obtain the abortion? Would the rapist have to be found guilty? Or would doctors be required to take any woman at her word that she was raped, with no confirmation or reporting (and so any woman who wanted an abortion would just have to claim rape). I can see a great deal of resulting pain from such an exception–false accusations, the attitude that “She just cried rape so she could get an abortion, etc. Services that would support the mother emotionally and medically, help her with privacy, and and help her make an informed choice about adoption vs raising the baby herself would actually help without murdering a baby or further screwing up society.
    We need to start with out local elections (Today!) and work our way up. Top down isn’t working.

    • Bob

      “Would the woman have to agree to press charges to obtain the abortion? Would the rapist have to be found guilty?”
      Definitely not, to bother. The rape may have caused the pregnancy but the criminal case is a separate matter entirely, and in any case a felony conviction can take months or even years.
      I suppose in a world where all abortion was illegal, except in cases of rape, the victim would have to report the rape, either initially to the police, or initially at a hospital or medical center, which would then have to call the police in for an official report, in order to perform an abortion.
      But you’re right, Beccolina: There are all kinds of unintended consequences to abortion bans. Women throwing themselves down flights of stairs and going to other extremes to induce miscarriages. Taking unregulated pharmaceuticals obtained via the Internet or from Mexican pharmacies. Back-alley stuff. Coat-hangers. And yes, false rape accusations. You name it, really. It would get pretty ugly out there.

      • Bob

        Correction: Should have said “definitely not, to both questions.”

      • Poke your head into the dumpster outside an abortion clinic. It already is horrendously ugly out there.

    • victoria

      There was a really interesting note in the Georgetown Law Review by this woman who is raising a baby conceived through her rape, about how badly this scenario works for women who decide to keep children conceived through rape. In almost every state, the fathers are entitled to visitation rights and in many cases this means that if the woman chooses to keep the baby, she can be forced to be in ongoing contact with her rapist.

      • Phil

        You’d think that states would fix these laws so that rapists forfeited visitation rights to any children their act conceived. Do these “pro-choice” politicians really respect a woman’s choice if that choice is to thave the child, or do they say “screw you , you had the chance to have it aken care of”???

        • victoria

          I definitely recommend you read the article (it’s linked to from the article I posted just above), because she has a really intelligent discussion of how society views rape victims and how choosing to continue the pregnancy messes with all the stereotypical ideas about rape in ways that do not work in these women’s favor. She says it a lot better than I think I could do justice to.

  • str

    I perfectly understand why Akin’s comments caused an uproar. Debra explained it above.
    I don’t understand why the Romney campaign would have to comment on it as it did. But neither do I understand the uproar about the comment. Romney/Ryan are running for political office. And has anyone ever expected pro-life politics that wouldn’t include a rape exception? Sure, rape is no justification of abortin. But Politics is the art of the possible.
    I don’t see how Ryan has forsaken his pro-life principles, nor do I see how Romney has said anything we didn’t already know.
    Still, even Romney is miles away from the most viciously pro-abort president ever.

  • Bob

    Well, this statement is awfully presumptuous:
    “Abortion after rape is misdirected anger.”
    A person who was not pregnant and had taken no steps of her own volition to risk pregnancy, who has a pregnancy violently forced on her, and who then seeks the ONLY STEP AVAILABLE to her to immediately return her body to its prior condition: This is a person engaged in “misdirected anger”?
    Psychobabble much? Did it ever occur to Ms. Foster that such a woman is merely trying to reclaim “possession” of her own body? That it has nothing to do with anger at her rapist?
    Look, I get the arguments of the pro-life no-exceptions crowd. If you see no moral difference between a blastocyst and a third-grader, then certainly it’s not the “baby’s” fault that its mother was raped. (In fact, it’s the rape-exception crowd that is truly bankrupt intellectually and possibly misogynistic; what basis could they have for drawing an exception to an abortion ban based on the circumstances of conception, unless their pro-lifery is founded in the misogynistic notion that a woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant is just a slut who needs to suffer the consequences?)
    But it is truly vile to declare that someone who simply wants her body (if nothing else) to return to the state it was in before she was yanked into a dark alley is acting only upon “misdirected anger.”

    • Ted Seeber

      Yes it is. Because even an abortion cannot “immediately return her body to its prior condition”. The rapist wishes it were so- he wants the abortion so that evidence of his misdeed is destroyed- but it just ain’t so. You can’t undo a rape with an abortion. There are myriad more mental repercussions than just the pregnancy, and turning the victim into a murderer just causes suicides.

      • Bob

        Not saying you can un-do the rape. But the victim’s body was un-pregnant prior to the rape and can be returned to a state of un-pregnant after the rape. Not talking about her mental state, though I find it hard to believe her mental state would be improved much by being forced to carry her assailant’s baby because some of other person’s religious beliefs.

        • Except that post-abortion is not the same ‘un-pregnant’ as it was before. There are physical changes that occur because of the conception of the child that don’t just go right back to what they were before. Regardless of the type of abortion there are after-effects physically let alone mentally and emotionally.

          The woman might be just trying to return her body back to its previous state but that is impossible – it sucks but there’s no going back – and the abortion will do further violence to her as well as to her child.

        • Ted Seeber

          But abortion doesn’t return the body to an unpregnant state. It merely murders the child.

          • Confederate Papist

            Bob, what did the baby do to the woman that should result in the death of the baby?

            • Steven

              Has Romney come out against the morning-after pill?

              The pill, for the record, does not cause abortion. For, like, the billionth time.

              It probably doesn’t even cause the fake “abortions” that prolifers count as an abortion.

            • Bob

              Papist, a blastocyst is not a baby. A baby has a brain stem and a conscious awareness of its own existence. Not true with a blastocyst, which is just a fertilized egg. So the question doesn’t make sense.

              Ted, I’m not sure what to tell you, buddy. A person either is or is not pregnant. It’s pretty much a binary state. Adding moral judgments onto the manner in which someone becomes pregnant, or concludes a pregnancy, is your right. But it doesn’t change the basic facts of whther that person is or is not pregnant. If a woman has a miscarriage, can we agree that she is no longer pregnant? This seems fairly straightforward.

              Dan, whatever the after effects of an abortion, it seems obvious that ending the pregnancy brings the woman’s body CLOSER to its original state than not doing so. The after effects of being pregnant for 9 months and then giving birth have been known to be fairly substantial, too. So, it may be “impossible” to return to the exact physical state you were in before (and frankly, I’m just taking your word for that; I don’t know that to be true), but you can get a heck of a lot closer your original state, especially if you take emergency contraception immediately after the event (which is how most rape pregnancies are avoided, btw, without the woman ever knowing whether her rapist succeeded in fertilizing her egg or not). There is no noticeable physical “after effect.”

              • Allie


                In reference to your statement that a blastocyst is not a baby- you may be interested in reading the following report… From the summary of the Westchester Institute White Paper: “When Does Human Life Begin: A Scientific Perspective” we read the following: “Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.” –

                • Bob

                  Oh, yes, u agree that it is life, biologically.
                  A blastocyst is not a baby. That’s all I’m saying.

                  • Ted Seeber

                    Then you’ve just redefined the word “baby”. Doesn’t matter if a blastocyst isn’t a baby, it’s still a human being. I’ve met far too many children of rape to claim that they don’t deserve to be born; may I suggest you seek out a few and ask THEM how they feel about your definitions?

              • Chris M

                “A baby has a brain stem and a conscious awareness of its own existence. ”

                I think that’s the first time I’ve heard that being the criteria for the definition of “baby”. Considering that a lot of the debate is over defining terms like “life” or “infant” or “person” we should probably take extreme care when throwing around definitions.

              • Confederate Papist

                Bob – blastocyst is 5 days after conception. Heart beat after 18 days. A woman normally finds out she’s pregnant 3~4 weeks after conception, so your argument is null and void.

                • The neural tube is completely closed 28 days after comception.

                • bob

                  1. Heart beat begins around five weeks, not 18 days. It’s around this time that the brain and spinal cord also begin to appear, though it’s very doubtful that the 5-week embryo has any conscious awareness at this point. Here’s a video:

                  2. The rape victim knows she being at the time of the rape and many, if not most, most seek medical attention immediately. We’re not talking about an ordinary pregnancy here, remember. They would normally receive emergency contraception, which usually (perhaps always) works by preventing ovulation. In rare cases it MAY work by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall (although this is at most very rare, and may not happen at all.)

                  Chris, if you’re struggling with the difference between a baby and a blastocyst, I suggest googling both terms. Click images. Have a look with your own eyes. I think it’ll be clear that these are not the same thing.

                  • Chris M

                    Google images doesn’t really help show if either are “self-aware” nor does it show much about the brain stem. Really, I’m just saying everyone in the discussion needs to be mindful of terminology, there’s no need to get snarky. I did look up “baby” in the dictionary, which said absolutely nothing about brain stems or consciousness.

                    I don’t think anyone is saying that there isn’t a difference between the developmental stages of blastocyst and an infant at birth. Just like there’s a difference in development between an infant at birth and an adolescent.

                    • bob

                      Not trying to be snarky, Chris.
                      ‘Baby’ is not really a scientific term and it means different things to different people. But I doubt, frankly, that a fertilized egg meets even most pro-lifers’ definition of a baby, much less the wider society’s. I do think looking at an image of a blastocyst is a useful way of getting a grip on just what it is we’re talking about. It’s clear that it has no brain and thus no conscious awareness of its own existence. And I do think that distinction matters when we’re deciding whether its rights supersede that of a woman’s, especially one who had it implanted in her against her will.
                      Re this: “I don’t think anyone is saying that there isn’t a difference between the developmental stages of blastocyst and an infant at birth.”
                      No, but many are saying that these distinctions don’t matter. I’m saying: They DO matter.

              • Ted Seeber

                Pregnant is not a binary state. It is FAR more complex than that involving all sorts of hormones and changes not just to the womb but to the brain.

  • Mark R

    Most reasonable people are repulsed at the mere thought of rape. This includes most pro-life people, who otherwise make exception for rape. Civil law never has and never will perfectly reflect God’s law.

  • Could someone please draw the clear line that shows that Really Truly Deeply Catholic Veep candidate to partly renouncing prolife convictions for the sake of party needs? I’m just not seeing it. Really. I’m not. I see a link that shows Ryan is pro-life. I see a link that says Romney and Ryan have done what many have done: said they (both Romney and Ryan) disagree with what Akin said. And that’s it. So please where exactly did Ryan renounce his prolife convictions in all of this?

    • Bob

      Ryan has long said that his preferred abortion ban would include no exception for rape victims. In fact, he co-sponsored the federal “personhood” that would confer full legal rights of personage to a fertilized egg, banning not only all abortions in virtually all cases, but would also probably criminalize hormonal contraception and in-vitro fertilization. All of this is more or less consistent with official Catholic teaching.
      But Romney’s view is that an exception to any abortion ban should be made for rape victims, and I’m fairly certain he’s not said that he’s a “personhood” supporter. What’s happening now is that the campaign has said that a Romney-Ryan Administration would reflect the views of Romney, not his running mate. So Mark Shea is excoriating Ryan for subjugating his views to that of his new boss, even though that is what is required of every vice presidential running mate in every election.

      • Is it any different than a Catholic who would vote for a candidate who also has some limited exceptions for abortion? Would that Catholic then be guilty of subjugating his views to that of his preferred candidate?

        • Chris M

          It would depend WHY he supported limited exceptions. If he did so as a tactical means of incrementally moving the law towards a total ban (which IIRC, the Church supports) then it would be different than if a person who changed their views merely for political gain.

          Of course, it could very well be BOTH, but we’re getting into making windows unto mens’ souls here. We could look at the voting records for both men and make reasonable assumptions either way about motives.

    • “Could someone please draw the clear line that shows that Really Truly Deeply Catholic Veep candidate to partly renouncing prolife convictions for the sake of party needs? I’m just not seeing it. Really. I’m not.”

      You’re asking for proof that Ryan has actually moderated his position on abortion? Since when did one need proof to intentionally calumniate someone? You must’ve forgotten on whose blog you’re commenting.

      For the record, I’m not supporting the Romney/RYAN ticket, as I am supporting the only candidate running on a 100% pro-life-with-no-exceptions platform, Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party. I am firmly in the “pox-on-both-your-houses” camp when it comes to the major parties. But, unlike some, I don’t translate that into a need to outright lie about a fellow Catholic who appears to take all facets of his Faith seriously (and, in fact, may be the most serious Catholic to ever appear on a major-party presidential ticket) in order to justify my “See, I told you so” position.

      • Mark Shea

        Come on. When the RR ticket issues a public statement on behalf of the candidates stating abortion is AOK in cases of rape, it’s a statement on behalf of the candidates. If Ryan wanted to disassociate himself from this hasty distancing of RR from prolifers and this sacrifice of his previous position, he could have. But for the sake of Party Needs he’s playing along. It’s the normal story of prolife relationship with the GOP and it’s not “calumny” to point it out.

        • But then isn’t someone voting for a candidate, or supporting a candidate, who thinks the same about abortion also doing the same?

          • Mark Shea

            Not unless he issues a statement associating himself with approval of abortion in cases of rape. Otherwise, it is can just be remote material cooperation.

            Notice how hard you are working to defend this betrayal instead of “holding their feet to the fire”. That’s the normal pattern of GOP domination of prolifers. Instead of defending this, why not cheer for Serrin Foster and urge the Romney campaign to have her cojones? It’s this pliancy to Party Needs that I am protesting.

            • I’m not defending him. I’m not a fan of his budget, but most of what I’ve heard comes from people on both sides with axes to grind. Since I’m no economist, it’s almost impossible for me to form an opinion other than it seems to be what most in the GOP believe, which I’ve not seen as overly beneficial for average folk. Otherwise, he seems like a person who’s passionate, invests himself in things he believe in, is focused on numbers and economics, and is apparently somewhat capable of holding his own in interviews.

              That’s all I’ve observed at this time. But when the case is being presented that he has renounced his pro-life stance for political expediency, I’m looking for something that suggests he has done so. It doesn’t even have to be an actual quote, since I doubt he would say it that way anyway. Just something where he has said that he’s now personally OK with abortion in cases of rape. All I found was a statement that said he and Romney said Akin was wrong – which just about everyone has said at this point. Otherwise, where has he renounced them?

              • Mark Shea

                Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg wrote:

                “Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape,”

                So Ryan now opposes the murder of innocent human beings–where it is convenient to Romney. That’s first fruit of this campaign: turning a principled opponent of abortion who claims to take Aquinas as his guiding light and turning him into another lapdog for party expedience.

                Next it will turn prolifers who claim they will “hold Romney’s feet to the fire” and make them good lapdogs too. I’m already being told I need to shut up and get on board. Nobody’s telling Romney to shut up and get on board. Least of all, Really Truly Deeply Prolife Ryan.

                Except Rebecca Kiessling.

                It’s best that RR made clear that they intend to exploit prolifers right away rather than allow them to build up the ridiculous illusion that they care in the slightest about the unborn should they stand in the way of power.

                • I guess I’m just not seeing the difference between what Ryan is doing and, say, supporting a candidate who holds to the same view of allowing abortions in the case of rape. Now if Ryan was the president, and in order to gain a following he came out and officially changed his views, that would be something else. As it stands, and this has been pointed out, he’s just the veep. Romney calls the shots. I would like Ryan himself to speak to the issue, because the quotes are from a spokesperson saying that a Romney-Ryan administration would… What are Ryan’s own views? Has he officially changed them? Does he hold his own but concede that his boss is the one who sets the standards and he would go with them? I do see some differences there. I’m not saying hasn’t changed his mind and no longer hold the position he held. But I would like him to do the talking, rather than a spokesperson speaking on behalf of the Romney ticket. Otherwise, if he still holds his views but merely defers to the views of Romney, I just don’t see it as any different than holding his views, but supporting any candidate who holds to Romney’s views. That’s the difficulty I’m having in all this.

  • marya

    Here’s where I’m getting stuck. If we are going to stick to our religious beliefs–completely– in choosing our candidates, and we aren’t going to adopt the “lesser evil” approach, then where does that leave us, as voters? As I see it, the options are 1) not to vote, or 2) vote for an unknown or lesser- known candidate who shares and promotes all of our beliefs, but doesn’t have a hope of winning. Either way, we are effectively letting others choose the office-holder. Some people like that approach because then they can feel as though they’re not responsible for the outcome. But as a citizen, that attitude is not for me.

    • Cinlef

      The problem is that your assuming political party platforms remain static, in fact they change in response to a variety of factors including pressure from the electorate. If you vote for a party (Party A) that disagrees with you on issue X you are in effect saying that issue X is less important to you that issues W, Y, Z or/and that it is less important to you than beating Party B. But lets say you don’t, and instead you and everyone like you who cares about issue X votes for Party C. In the short term Party B wins the election, Party A looses and Party C comes in distant third. Eventually Party A realizes that they will never beat Party B without winning back voters from Party C and that they can win those voters back by changing stance on issue X.

      This is basic stuff and happens pretty frequently in parliamentary democracies like the one I live in, but its equally applicable if probably a bit slower in a two party US system

  • Kirt Higdon

    The Republican Party is also going soft on sodomy. Language in prior GOP platforms opposing gay marriage and gays openly serving in the military will be removed at the request of Romney – so I’ve read reported. Now I would be the last person to claim that a party platform represents anything that the party intends to do once elected. It does however represent lip service to constituencies. The Republicans have concluded correctly that they no longer have to pay even lip service to those opposed to the sodomite agenda. When you have the lesser evil vote locked up, all you have to do is follow closely in the slipstream of the greater evil; all the evil is heading in the same direction anyway.

  • Sandra Miesel

    For centuries, English common law would not prosecute a rape if the victim proved pregnant, based on the then-prevailing medical theory that the woman had to consent in order to conceive. Some folklorish memory may lie behind the candidate’s unfortunate remarks.The other part of his statement is true, that pregnancy from rape is rare, but pro-aborts want to claim otherwise.

    • A 2001 study puts pregnancies resultant from rape at 6.4%. That’s not exactly “rare”. Especially compared to Pennsylvania state Rep. Stephen Freind’s statement arguing in the late 1980s that the odds of a pregnancy resulting from rape were “one in millions and millions and millions.” The Republican party has a very bad track record regarding rape victims and the anti-abortion stances of many of those same Republicans does not forgive that. We have a lot of work to do in promoting the Culture of Life: to fight and defend the dignity of all human beings, of all the weak and the vulnerable – not just unborn babies. Maybe someday the party will do better but, given the current trajectory of the Republican party I don’t know if they’ll be salvageable for much longer.

      • Cinlef

        Just to be clear your saying 6.4% of rapes result in pregnancy? Because from your comment I’m not sure if that’s what you mean or if your saying 6.4% of pregnancies result from rape. Your wording is ambiguous

  • Confederate Papist

    Rape is horrible. Whoever is guilty of it should get punished to the fullest extent of the law.

    That being said, if the woman gets pregnant as a result of the rape and abortion is on the table, my question is; what did the baby do that would warrant the death penalty? It’s not the baby’s fault, therefore, if you don’t want him/her (heartbeat after 18 days….you won’t even know until after that period…), put him/her up for adoption.

    There is no deviation from this. Ever! A society that kills it’s children has no soul. Didn’t work out too well for Herod when he killed the Holy Innocents, did it?

  • Adolfo

    “The Republican Party is also going soft on sodomy.” This made me laugh really loudly and for quite some time.

    • DTMcCameron

      Oh, no! Oh, no, no, no! XD

      But thank you, I missed it!

  • Kurt

    I just watched Romney say that in certain circumstances abortion “might be appropriate.”

    Most pro-choice Democrats (not all), while supporting the legality of abortion, have avoided ever saying that abortion can be “appropriate.”

  • crazylikeknoxes

    I’m confused. Ryan would allow abortion in cases of rape. But I thought Rand would allow abortion in all cases except rape (being an act of selfishness). Politics.

  • Sandra Miesel

    Doesn’t anyone remember that Roe v. Wade started with a false claim of rape–by the pro-abortion lawyers, not Norma McCorvey? She hadn’t been seeking an abortion when she fell into their hands, hadn’t been raped, and didn’t abort.

  • Brother Cadfael

    Others have made this point, but the only statement here attributed to Ryan is his disagreement with Akin’s statement. With respect to the statement about what position the new administration would take, Ryan himself is silent. If we’re going to have an honest debate, why aren’t we debating whether such silence is prudent or not? Is silence in a situation such as this ever okay or morally defensible? That would be a better debate in my opinion than falsely claiming Ryan has changed his position.

    • Mark Shea

      Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg wrote:

      “Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape,”

      Deal with it. Ryan ditched his “conviction” that innocent human life can never be deliberate destroyed because his boss ordered him to.

      It would be wonderful if prolifers spent 1/10th the energy on telling Romney to get on board with prolifers as they spend telling principled prolifers to shut up, knuckle under and capitulate every time a GOP pol says, “Compromise, or the baby gets it!”

      • Brother Cadfael

        If Ryan switched his position here or agreed with the announced position of the administration as you have suggested, the statement would read pretty much as you’ve highlighted: “Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement and do not oppose abortion in instances of rape.” But it doesn’t say that. It says that Ryan disagrees with Akin’s statement and the administration would not oppose abortion in cases of rape. The statement is silent as to Ryan’s position on the topic of abortion in cases of rape.

        When commenting on it further Ryan stated: “Look, I’m proud of my record,” the Wisconsin congressman said at a brief news conference on his plane. “I’m proud of my record. Mitt Romney is going to be president and the president sets policy. His policy is exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. I’m comfortable with it because it’s a good step in the right direction.”

        Seems pretty clear to me that Ryan has not changed his position here — “a good step in the right direction” indicates he would go further, as he is clearly on record stating in the past.

        If Ryan is right — that Romney’s proposal is a “good step in the right direction” because it is clearly better than the law currently out there — is it morally defensible for him to remain silent on the moral flaws in Romney’s position in order to facilitate that step being taken? In other words, is silence a morally defensible alternative in order to achieve passage of pro-life policies that are better than what we currently have?

        • Mark Shea

          In othr words, Ryan wants prolifers to remember his record and ignore his betrayal, while he wants mainstream Americans to know that he is willing to sign off on the murder of a particular class of innocents and not make waves for his boss. And all for power. Nobly done.

          • Brother Cadfael

            If you’re looking for the Least Charitable Alternative interpretation, you certainly found it.

            • Mark Shea

              Yes. In matters pertaining to the feelings of immensely rich and powerful men climbing to political success on the corpses of dead innocents, the overriding concern must always be the exquisitely sensitive feelings of the immensely rich and powerful. Remind me to tell Rebecca Kiessling to shut up and get out of the way. She’s embarrassing the Romney/Ryan campaign with her histrionics about not wanting to be killed.

              • Brother Cadfael

                You’re assuming that advocating a position that stops the vast majority of abortions can only be motivated by selfish political goals, and can only be considered a betrayal. That is cerainly one interpretation, and it is certainly the Least Charitable Alternative available based on the known facts.

                It is possible, on the other hand, that Ryan believes that (1) insisting on the no-exception policy he firmly believes in will result in no change to currrent abortion policy, or a backslide; (2) a less-than-perfect policy that would stop the vast majority of (but not all) abortions is within our grasp; and (3) he can focus immediately on (2) and work on stopping all abortions once most have been stopped. If he believes that silence now on the exception will save more babies than speaking out, is speaking out the only defensible alternative?

                Pope Pius XII prudently decided mute some of his criticism of the Nazis in order to prevent retaliation that would likely have been worse. Many have interpreted that as betrayal, assuming that a failure to scream as loud as he could that the Nazis were committing unspeakable atrocities could only have been motivated by something other than a sincere concern for the welfare of the Jews. They were wrong about Pope Pius XII.

                Sometimes silence is prudent. And sometimes it is motivated by something other than greed, political expediency, or an unbridled lust for power. That doesn’t make for as good of a story, of course, and it doesn’t fit so neatly into the caricature of Ryan you’ve created.

                Nobody I know wants Rebecca to shut up, get out of the way, or stop getting that message out to anyone and everyone who will listen. But if the only way a bill can be passed is with a rape exception (or not at all), I will pass the bill with the rape exception and move to eliminate the exception at the first opportunity. You can accuse me of killing Rebecca if you like, but I’ll continue to work saving babies and not worry about it.

                • Mark Shea

                  “Pope Pius XII prudently decided mute some of his criticism of the Nazis in order to prevent retaliation that would likely have been worse.”

                  And the immense danger Romney is prudently averting by making his Catholic running mate approve of killing people like Rebecca Kiessling is….?

                  Still awaiting that handwringing denunciation of Uncharity for the dude who called Obama a Communist, by the way.

  • Reid Kelley

    I’m a little late to this discussion, but I’m not quite seeing how this shift is particularly problematic. I can certainly understand how Romney’s previous pro-choice stance and his general untrustworthiness are problematic, but I fail to see how accepting an abortion policy that stated that abortion should be illegal except in the cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother is necessarily a capitulation of conviction to party needs, or – if it is – then that is necessarily wrong. Fr Neuhaus suggested accepting that policy was, while perhaps not an ideal, nevertheless a worthy goal as far back as 1992 (see chapter 7 of America Against Itself – I can’t say if he later changed his mind, not having read much else by him). And he specifically cautioned that the pro-life movement should be careful to not overreach, but to accept the position that provides “the most comprehensive legal protection of the unborn that is culturally and politically sustainable” (pg 159 of America Against Itself in the hardback edition). So I’m not seeing how a political calculation that it would be better/acceptable to expand the list of exceptions to include rape would constitute a betrayal of the pro-life position, even if it was done only because it would help Romney get elected. Again, perhaps that decision was made merely because Romney doesn’t care about the issue but needs the votes of those who do. But perhaps the decision was made because Ryan, seeing how the issue plays on a field larger than his previous one, decided to temper his views to help get broader support for his ticket, which he believes would do more on the whole to support Fr Neuhaus’ “most comprehensive legal protections” that were sustainable. I understand that this reading is perhaps overly charitable.

    • Mark Shea

      It’s problematic because a formerly principled Catholic who understood the Church’s teaching that it is never permissible to deliberately kill innocent human life has now forsaken that view because his boss ordered him to do it. As is the custom with many prolifers, the energy is now being expended, not to “hold the GOP’s feet to the fire” as we delusionally tell ourselves we will do, but to shout down all prolifer who “threaten party unity” with the tried and true extortion note: “Shut up and vote GOP or the baby gets it.”

      Congratulations, Prolife Catholics, the actual practical ‘real world’ result of your realism has been that a formerly prolife Catholic has prostituted his convictions and lots of other prolifers are defending that instead of putting intense pressure on Romney in protest. Tell me again what good this “strategy” does the prolife movement? Oh! Right! It earns them the power to offer lapdog defenses of unjust war, torture, fiscal irresponsibility, and judges like Roberts, Souter, Miers, Kennedy, O’Connor and Blackmun. Cuz any day now the GOP is really goning to respect us.

      If we’re gonna hold their feet to the fire, now’s the time.

  • I may have misheard, but I thought the chair of the Republican Party platform committee told a CNN interviewer yesterday that the platform is “silent” on the question of exceptions for rape and incest.

    • Well, details. Whoever the platform committee member was, she wasn’t chairman Bob McDonnell.

      The platform reportedly includes the statement, “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.” Since the draft Human Life Amendment doesn’t allow for exceptions — and, frankly, since exceptions would make the platform’s affirmation “that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed” incoherent — CNN is reporting this (pretty much a cut-and-paste from 2008) as ” a call for a Constitutional ban on abortion that makes no exceptions for rape or incest.”

      Yet, “Republican officials said the language in the platform was ‘100% pro-life’ but stressed that the document has to remain vague and avoid specific language about abortion exceptions because different states have varying abortion regulations.”

      So: Purposefully vague on making abortion illegal.

      But if it’s anything like the last platform, there will be quite a lot in it about not spending tax dollars for abortions. Is the GOP’s opposition to abortion, or to spending tax dollars?

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    As unspeakable a horror as the mere thought of being raped would represent for any woman, it is also highly likely that, if you go far back enough into our distant and barbaric human past, each one of us alive today would be faced with the prospect of encountering at least one instance of forcbile rape in our geneaology (going back to the Year Dot).

    Not so long ago, several of my marauding Dark Age Viking ancestors most likely (I cover my face) forced themselves upon my other ancestors – Celtic Irish women, which resulted in pregnancies, which if aborted, would have meant that I wouldn’t be here. And if you go back further, to Neolithic and to Paleolithic times, the likelihood of such occurences appearing in the table of ancestors of any person, I believe, approaches certainty.

    This is why I believe it is reasonable to say that we are all – ultimately – the products of at least one rape.

    • Marion (Mael Muire)

      P.S. My point in writing the above is to remind all of us that, even though a pregnancy resulting from a rape must represent an horrific physical and emotional burden upon the mother, it makes no sense to view “the product of a rape” as a thing to be disposed of, unless we are also willing to view ourselves as things to be disposed of if we should ever become burdens to someone.

  • Not going to backtrack and read all of the comments here, but I think it is quite wrong to suggest that Ryan is compromising his pro-life views of the sake of Romney. Ryan has been quoted saying that Romney’s views were much closer to his own than Obama’s, and this is indisputable, given that the latter would leave infants who survive abortions to die in the trash.

    I have no doubt that Ryan will continue to advocate for life in his capacity as a politician. Romney will not be as strong as we like, but it also seems highly unlikely that he will oppose pro-life legislation emanating from a (hopefully) GOP-controlled Congress. I don’t see him vetoing bills that aggressively target Planned Parenthood or making SCOTUS choices that will prove unacceptable to the pro-life movement.

    I certainly understand why people are skeptical of Romney. But cut Ryan some slack.

    • Mark Shea

      I can track with the “Sucks Less” evaluation. But I just don’t see how anybody can regard movement from “It is always gravely evil to deliberately kill innocent human life” to “I am opposed to the murder of innocent, unborn children except in cases my boss tells me not to be opposed,” or, “unless I feel it jeopardizes my chances of becoming VP” and maintain that Ryan is not compromising.

      Just stick with “Sucks Less” and stop trying to justify this absurd ticket beyond that.

  • Festo

    Romney can’t and won’t articulate this issue the right way. He is hopelessly confused himself, and his sect doesn’t help things.

    Ryan can’t do more than he has, other than to quite the race, which would only help the absolutely disgusting democrat party. Obama has the NERVE to talk about disadvantaged young people? We need to pay their way? And he supports a measure to let young babies die on a stainless steel table if they are not “wanted.” I still can’t figure out if he is evil or stupid. probably both.

    On a happier note, SEALS justly killed guilty human life in the sorry form of Bin Laden. “Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo.” Only this country could carry out this mission with a de facto communist in the white house.

    • Mark Shea

      I await with anticipation Brother Cadfael’s anguished handwringing about “de facto Communist” and the heart-rending lack of charity that so troubles him.

  • Kurt

    Romney has other flaws. “Let companies sell health insurance across state lines.’ Well, this is an effective nullification of those state laws that prohibit abortion as part of a health insurance package. These states lose the right to regulate insurance sold within their boundries. “Make Medicaid a state block grant.” Well, this allows states to use federal tax dollars to fund Medicaid abortion. At every turn, the alliance with Big Business trumps pro-life. Don;t even get me started on Romney’s support for Mercury abortions.

  • Frederic J. Villarial

    I just finished reading all of the todays comments concerning this topic of discussion. And what a great discussion this has been, so I don’t have any great words of wit that I am able to add. I would only like to say that I am so pleased to see so many others that share most of my views about this Romney/Ryan ticket. Thank you so much Mark Shea for articulating what many of us are not able to. I live in Virgina, and there is a growing movement among the faithful around here to support the Constitution Party, rather than continue with the same old game of staying true to the Republican Party, only to be shunned once our candidate wins his election. I am not a shill for the Constitution Party, yet, but I am saying that it may be high time to draw a line in the sand, and focus our political might on a growing political party, that actually values our position on moral issues.

  • Kurt

    “I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that.” (Mitt Romney, 1994)

  • Guest

    You have to be careful with the third-partys, too. Some of them are racist.