In a number of different forums, I have been pointing out how Mitt Romney has chosen to endorse at least two governor candidates who support the murder of unborn children: Meg Whitman of California, and Bob Ehrlich of Maryland. I, of course, meet with resistance from Romney supporters. Some of them make pragmatic arguments about the absurdity of expecting someone who is pro-life to win in liberal states and occasionally they even add Massachusetts to the mix. They marshal arguments about electability and “single-issue voters”, thus vehemently denying Romney is unprincipled on this issue.
One thing they don’t do is call abortion “murder”. In their defense of Meg Whitman (who supports a California policy of taxpayer funded child murder), what she actually believes is never discussed. One “pro-life” Romney supporter instead railed against extremists who wave signs showing aborted fetuses. I don’t really mind the word fetus, if it used consistently. I will sometimes anger a pregnant woman who has decided to keep her own baby while she advocates the right of other mothers to kill her offspring. How do I do that? By simply asking “How is your fetus doing?”. When I asked the Romney supporter if his wife had ever had a fetus, I was met with dead silence.
Of course, this is not limited to just Romney supporters. Why are so many of us who see ourselves as pro-life afraid to speak plainly about the slaughter of our neighbors? Why don’t we use the terms “child murder” or “infant-killing” or “massacre”. We are afraid, that is why. Just like the blood-thirsty advocates of murder themselves, we prefer the term “pro-choice”.
I understand that for many politicians “decorum” or other such things lead thems to taper down their language. But God forbid that we use terms like “pro-choice” to defend or endorse the very advocacy of bloodshed we claim to oppose.
David Shedlock
His wife also ows a business selling antique and collectible postcards on eBay since 1999. David was an activist with Operation Rescue in the early 1990s. He is a member of Trinity Presbyterian Reformed Church in Johnston, Iowa.
David suffered a stroke in 2012, but has begun to recover after almost four years of complications.To God be the Glory, I believe he is continuing a work in me, that he began when I was a child (Philippians 1:6)
Latest posts by David Shedlock (see all)
- Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump: To Vote or Not to Vote - July 27, 2016
- Reagan and the Black Panthers - June 20, 2016
- Why Do We Trust Them? - June 13, 2016
Both Republican candidates for governor in California, Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner, were pro-choice. There was no pro-life candidate for governor.
Romney endorsed Whitman because she is a fiscal conservative and has a record of success in business. Whitman has been an executive with Disney, DreamWorks, Procter and Gamble, and eBay.
Whitman served as a part of Romney’s presidential campaign and subsequently worked to elect John McCain and defeat Obama.
Again, there was no pro-life Republican candidate. Whitman’s primary opponent has a 100 percent pro-abortion rating from Planned Parenthood.
Whitman is a fiscal conservative and she has a record of supporting Romney and McCain and working to defeat Obama.
I support her too.
Apparently the answer to my question is “no”, they cannot.
Muder is the intentional unlawful killing of one human being by another. Those who support abortion honestly do not believe that a fetus is a human being–certainly an egg that has just been fertilized does not seem like a human being. Because they do not intend to kill a human being, and no one without religious convictions can be completely confident that they are killing human being. Because they lack intent and because the victim’s status as a human being is in question, those who perform or receive abortions are not committing murder. Certainly such people are not on the same moral level as those who intentionally kill their fellow human beings. Personally, I oppose legalized abortion in almost all circumstances, but I don’t think it’s necessary or helpful to demonize my neighbors.
“Those who support abortion honestly do not believe that a fetus is a human being”
Those who murdered Jews in the 1930s and 1940s did not believe they were killing human beings. People who have killed the handicapped, sick, or weak have justified their killings as being inflicted on non-persons. Civilized society has rightly rejected those arguments because deliberately blinding yourself to the truth is not an excuse. I have watched thousands of mothers walk into a building to kill their own children. They know what they are doing. The grief of a miscarrying woman is greater than the grief of one unable to conceive, though the latter is great.
If the baby was not alive we would not have to kill him. If he is not a human, when will he become one?
I’m beginning to see a pattern here! This author exists to slam Romney.
I exist to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. I fail miserably at both. I have also written two of my measly eight posts specifically about Romney. Isn’t free speech great? This site even allows you to respond with just about any arguments you want to make in order to set the record straight.
Thanks Jane for your thoughts.
I’m a Mormon, and a Romney supporter – so you may wish to take my next comment with a grain of salt. I think our obligation is to God first, before we worry about offending those who are willing to kill an unborn child. True, we do not know when the fetus is endowed with life from God – but I’d much rather play it safe and oppose abortion, staunchly. I mean, I love Romney and all – but he only just decided several years ago to take a firm stance. Win or lose, abortion isn’t something we can afford to dink around with. I really want Romney to have a Californian governor’s endorsement in 2012, but I don’t think it is worth one unborn child.
Jason, thank you for your thoughtful and honest reply.
I agree with your conclusions but disagree as to how you got there. When Elizabeth was already six months pregnant (Luke 1:36), Mary was conceived of a child of the Holy Ghost (Our Lord Jesus). Immediately she went to see Elizabeth (vv. 39,40). The babe in Elizabeth’s womb leapt for joy at the presence of who? “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” Three months later Elizabeth delivered John the Baptist (vv. 56, 57). So how old was Jesus when John responded to his presence? Mere days, Perhaps hours.
Jason, we can know when life begins, it begins at conception. There are other passages of Scripture that make the point, but I’ll stop there for now.
Oh boy, another evangelical blogger that gives evangelicals a bad name. Romney is your best hope for 2012 if you want a pro-life president. Pro-choice is a common descriptor even among pro-life groups. This article nauseates me.
Braden’s answer is obviously “no” in spades. Now I am beginning to see a pattern.
Romney??? Hey Guys, Here’s my take on all this. I’ve read the many comments up to this point and truly see all sides and can understand your viewpoints.
I have followed Romney for a few years now and don’t believe he personally is for abortion. I know he loves his church which by the way is called, “The Church of Jesus Christ of latter days Saints.” He loves the Bible and loves the man who walked along the shores of Galilee.
Mormons are firmly against abortion except in extreme cases where the mother may die by having the child and in cases of rape and incest. I know of unwed pregnant teens who sot the council of the Mormon Church to give birth to the baby and with the assistance of the Church adopted the babies into loving families. Thus the sin was not further added upon by the killing of a child but became an added joy into the lives of adoptive parents.
Had Romney stood against abortion when he ran for Governor we would not be having this discussion today because he would have never got elected which means he most likely would not be in the political spotlight that he’s in today. With politics like many things you very often have to work the system to get yourself in a position where you can really make a difference. I agree this may seem like Romney’s a hypocrite that can’t be trusted but how many of you ever worked for a company or a boss that had standards or practices they wanted followed that didn’t necessarily conform with your own ideas or beliefs? So, you say to yourself I’ll play the game, show this company what I can do and then work myself into a position where I can start calling the shots. Have you ever had to do that? Romney the businessman that he is I believe thought along these lines when he ran for Governor and when he endorsed Meg.
Romney is a proven master in getting positive results. Look what he did with the 2002 Winter Olympics. Those Olympics were ridden with bribes and corruption and on the verge of becoming a total failure. Romney was selected to take over the mess which he did and totally turned it around into becoming one of the most successful and respected games in Olympic History, which made America proud instead of shamed.
Romney knows how to streamline and make things efficient. He’s done this in business and he turned Massachusetts financial crisis into a big financial State surplus. Mitt Romney also knows the world stage better then most in that he’s worked in the International arena with his many business dealings. He has a very unique perspective on how we can make this great Country of ours strong and competitive against the likes of China and the emerging India. etc.
And lastly, Romney’s a Hawk when it comes to National Defense. He knows that the only true respect we will get from the World is to be Militarily strong which commands the respect of these thug dictators throughout the World. No Apologies from this guy, not after all the good AMERICA has done in the World.
I like Romney alot. He’s a moral man with a great family. I would hope that he would inspire this Country to get back to higher moral standards that we had several years back, before immorality, sexual perverseness and pornography had penetrated many facets of our society. I long for the day when I was a kid and you could turn on the TV and watch all channels (3 at that time) and see nothing but good decent shows and programming. Now I panic whenever I see a kid turn on a TV not to mention the unbelievable pervasive acts that are available for all to see on the internet. This, my friends concerns me more than any Economic downturn or Terrorist threat because the soul of our Nation and the Souls of our Children are being poisoned by this evil.
May God Bless this Great Country of ours and may he Bless Mitt Romney….
Thank you for your insightful post. You are the first supporter of Romney’s who has ever admitted, to my knowledge, that Romney probably only bent his views to get himself elected in Massachusetts.
“you very often have to work the system to get yourself in a position where you can really make a difference”
I disagree. Romney was not a stealth candidate who immediately moved to “make a difference” once he was in office.
“Romney the businessman that he is I believe thought along these lines when he…endorsed Meg.”
That is the problem, here we are 15 or 20 years later and Mr. Romney is still playing. When will ever start taking child murder serious. Let me suggest that until or unless he has a true conversion to a pro-life position he never take is serious. You see a politician always looks ahead to the next election or to his legacy. The day when he takes a stand will never come.
David,
You make some good and valid points. However, you make things too black and white. I personally have always been anti-abortion for moral reasons- I believe any who engage in that practice will have to pay the price to our Creator. But, it took me a long time to be willing to “force my belief” on others. Mostly because I agree with you that abortion is murder can I now justify trying to legislate morality. Unfortunately, that will never work. Abortion will not end until we as Christians can convert our brethren. I do support pro-life candidates, but because I think legislation against abortion will have as much success as prohibition.
I do believe that Romney is pro-life, but that is not his overriding criteria for supporting someone. That is what seems to set you off.
But my question to you- since Gingrich, Cheney, McCain, and Condoleeza Rice have all endorsed Whitman, where is your wrath against them? I have not been able to find definitive proof, but I do believe that Palin has now endorsed Whitman, although not until after she handily won the GOP primary. (Palin’s website says absolutely nothing other than please donate and she does her endorsements more unofficially except for on Facebook.)
And if Huckabee ever endorses Whitman or a candidate like her (even if after winning the primary while supporting a true pro-life candidate prior), will you be as equally harsh? After all, you have argued that just because neither candidate was pro-life does not make so Romney is forgiven for endorsing a pro-abortion candidate.
If not, then you are a hypocrite- and we all know what Christ said about them.
First, let me make my position clear. If Governor Huckabee or Sarah Palin endorsed someone like Meg Whitman, that would be a deal breaker for me. I do not think Palin has endorsed Whitman. I have looked and can find no evidence that she has.
Yes, my position is clear and consistent. I don’t think Huckabee’s position helps him politically. I believe he does it from personal conviction on the issue. Something I see few others have.
“can I now justify trying to legislate morality. Unfortunately, that will never work.”
Virtually all law is the legislating of somebody’s morality. The only reason we have laws against theft, rape, and assault is because we believe those things are morally wrong.
David,
First, you should be more honest about your dislike of Romney. Anyone visiting Rightosphere can quickly see you dislike Romney. Your answer to Jane really was disingenuous.
I’m Mormon, I believe that conception is the beginning of life. I don’t know that your biblical analysis is perfect, (hours) but that doesn’t matter to me since we seem to agree that life begins at conception. Further, for me, even if it didn’t, it wouldn’t change my views of the evil of abortion. (I truly believe that legalized abortion is one of the greatest evils ever to be perpetrated by/on this country. Ten times worse than gay marriage, and if not worse, then at least on par with slavery.)
I also agree with you that essentially every law is legislation of morality, and I agree that the phrase “pro-choice” fails miserably at describing the evil of abortion. However…
Does Palin publicly call it child murder? I’ve never heard it. If she has, please reference. The same with Huckabee please.
It’s true that the term pro-choice is mis-leading, but what is annoying is your vain attempt to tie it to Romney and his supporters. Even Sarah (who I adore) and Huckabee (who I don’t adore) don’t use your choice of words in public. Your post should have been about the fact that you don’t like Romney because he endorsed a “pro-choice” candidate. That’s fine and your prerogative. But instead you attempt to smear Romney and his supporters for using the same language as every other candidate.
You made a perfectly valid point about the phrase “pro-choice”, but the rest of this piece smacks of political opportunism. To answer your question, I am one Romney supporter who doesn’t use the phrase pro-choice, but I am not so naive as to think that there are no Sarah supporters or Huckabee supporters who don’t use that language. Very disingenuous, a strawman of an argument.
Rob, thanks for your reasonable post. Welcome to Caffeinated Thoughts.
First, I don’t deny for a moment that I disagree with Romney’s positions on things, and do not like his approach to politics/governance. But it is not personal and “zero” to do with his Mormonism. My answer to Jane was honest. She was exaggerating my views and just trying to bait me into returning the approach, as is often the case at Rightosphere. We do things differently here, trying at all times to be civil. I hardly exist just to go after Romney. I will be blogging on scores of different topics, freom religion to politics to social commentary.
My point was not to judge people in general who use the term pro-choice. I have used it, and occassionally may still do it. But the last sentence of my original post was my point. Use the term if you must or if you want. But do not use it, if you are pro-life to hide your defense of the supporters of child murder. When opponents to my position on Whitman refer to her, they almost use the term pro-choice. You won’t see them saying,
“Romney is willing to endorse this advocate of child murder because…”
I have made it clear that if Huckabee were to begin defending child killers and endorsing them, he would lose my vote, immediately.
I certainly hope my post didn’t lead you to think I was implying you were attacking Mormonism. Looking back, I don’t even know why I posted that I was a Mormon (not that I regret it.)
Whether I agree with your post or not, I am very pleased that there are still those like yourself who see the abortion issue the same way I do. It is truly vile and a sign of a regressive society.