Heard a snippet this morning on NPR about Mitt Romney's "pro-life" renovation. It included something along the lines of opposing abortion except in cases of rape, incest and when the woman's life is in danger.
Hmm, I thought, there they go again with that really convenient exception that just blows holes in their entire arguement.
I looked it up just to be sure.
According to his site.
Governor Romney: "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."
(Boston Globe, Op-Ed, July 26, 2005)
We oughta be making hay with this backdoor escape plan.
To the jump!
As an intro, my personal preference is to refer to the different camps in the manner in which they both prefer. Pro-life, pro-choice. If I call them anti-choice, they call me pro-death. It gets ugly and doesn't really do anything constructive. That's my opinion and my choice.
Anyway, onto my rant.
Hey pro-lifers! It's human life right? That's why you're opposed to abortion? Well, what difference does rape or incest make? It's a human life regardless, right?
I can see how you can be pro-life and allow it when the woman's life is in danger. After all, better to lose one than two right? I can get that. But if a fetus is a human life, then what does rape or incest have to do with anything?
To be clear, I am pro-choice, and I especially value the right to choose when someone has been victimized. To have that choice at such a dark time is an exercise in autonomy, some semblance of control at a time when so little is left.
I had a long-time girlfriend who was raped. I've seen the damage. But really, for me, as it relates to abortion, rape and incest isn't an exception. It's part of a whole package. I don't think a fetus is a human life. There is no contradiction. The woman should have the choice. Always.
So what's up with this exception? And Romney's wording is even weirder upon further analysis.
I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother.
It's the "wrong choice?" Does that mean that it can be the right choice? Apparently Mitt does. How's that?Again, if it's human life, it's human life!
But with Mitt and others of his ilk, it's not really about the sanctity of life. It's about pregnancy as punishment, as consequence for action. Play around? Tough, have the baby.
Victimized? Okay, we'll LET you have an abortion.
You know what this is about folks? This is about CONTROL. This is about lording as judge over women, deciding if what they have done or not done warrants the right to make the "right" choice.
As I said at the outset, I really do prefer to refer to the camps in the manner in which they prefer, and frankly, I did not anticipate this conclusion until I started writing the paragraph above.
But you know what? Mitt is NOT pro-life. He's pro-control. He wants to decide who gets to do what, based on the exceptions that he approves of.
Bullshit.