both Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann proved themselves honest, consistent, and capable pro-life candidates at the Gift of Life film premiere held in Des Moines, Iowa last night. However, the format did not lend itself to challenging the claims and record of other candidates, which is not only a legitimate, but a necessary component to vetting the presidential candidates.
There is one issue that demonstrates the clear-cut differences between these two candidates and Texas Governor Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich. These three think it is just fine to kill some babies–not every baby, of course–but just some babies. They’re just sayin’.
I have not endorsed Bachmann or Santorum[1], but would love for both of them to finish above 15% in Iowa. That would shake up the race.
Which of the babies pictured above would Gingrich sign the death warrant for? Which one would Romney give the nod to approve her execution? Of which one would Perry say “go ahead” kill him?
Tonight’s debate in Sioux City may be the last opportunity for Iowans to hear what some want to ignore. The three “almost pro-lifers” should be personally put on the record as to their position on exceptions. I call them “almost pro-life” because as Bachmann put it last night “every child has been made in the image of God”.
Rick Santorum is on the record as to being 100% pro-life, including the children of rape victims:
“That child is an innocent victim,” Santorum replied. “To be victimized twice would be a horrible thing. It is an innocent human life, genetically human from the moment of conception.”
The campaign of Newt Gingrich recently said:
“Gingrich still supports abortions in the cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother. He would allow for the three exceptions”
The campaign of Rick Perry in September said:
“His position has been consistent on this. Gov. Perry is pro-life, with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.”
Mitt Romney has also made his position official:
“I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.”
2 comments
I find it interesting how so many who are “pro-life” just conveniently disregard the child if there’s rape or incest. Is it the child’s fault his dad is a rapist? If Newt or Rick or Mitt had been conceived from a rape, would they have wanted to be killed? What ever happened to the Golden Rule? Now, some may say, “What if you were raped? Would you want to carry the baby to full term?” Granted, it would be very difficult, but least the woman wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) have any guilt about the matter. The trauma of an abortion would be far worse, and carry loads of guilt.
As for Mitt, now he’s OK with the repeal of DADT. And so is his buddy Ann C. 😛 Mitt Romney? Make that Mitt Wrong-ney. 😉
Apparently Santorum has made some equivocal statements concerning exceptions for abortion as well. From the 2006 PA Senate debate:
Q: If you believe that life begins at conception, then why do you support exceptions for rape, incest, and life of mother?
SANTORUM: Yeah, I would vote for things like that.
Q: But it’s the taking of a life.
.
SANTORUM: The Hyde Amendment allows rape, incest, life of the mother. That is the common ground we could get, and I would support that.
Q: But by your standards, it’s the taking of a life.
SANTORUM: It is, there’s no question it’s the taking of a life. But it is an attempt for me to try to see if we can find common ground to actually make progress in limiting the other abortions. So yes, that’s what I would do.
Comments are closed.