October 18, 2012

The Great Pro-Life Debate: Should We Support Romney?

The latest debate amoung pro-lifers is whether we should support Mitt Romney, who at one time was "pro-choice" and is now against abortion with the exception of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger.  Here's the latest Romney ad on abortion:

The argument for or against Romney is of the same vein as other incrementalism vs. non-incrementalism abortion arguments in the past. 

This discussion brings up numerous questions:  What about those who were conceived by the act of rape?  Do we tell them that their life is not as valuable as others?  Do we support Romney, even though he is for the killing of certain unborn humans, because he is so much better than the extreme pro-abortions stance of President Obama and those in his administration?  Do we not support him because he is just the "lesser of two evils" and he obviously is not going to do anything while in office to curtail abortion.   Do we support Romney and then put pressure on him once he is in office to harden his stance against abortion?  Do we look at the abortion issue as one of many important problems we currently have?  Should we vote for Romney because if Obama gets four more years the whole country could be even further down the tubes economically and in our standing in the world?

This is one debate I am torn on.  I have not been a supporter of incrementalism, because if we focus only on having laws protecting specific unborn humans, by implication we are saying those unborn are more important than the ones we are ignoring.  On the other hand, having a strong interest in politics, I do realize that a person or organization rarely gets all they want.  The reality is often that compromise usually rules, and you may only get 50% of what you desire, if that much.  Another reality is that we could have had a very strong pro-life candidate in Rick Santorum, but he didn't have the money or support needed to defeat Romney.

Juda Myers, founder of Choices4Life, comments on this debate after a short intro of her:

"When faced with the lesser evil being the "only" choice in this presidential race I am compelled to remind those saying they follow Christ to do so even in their votes. To connect oneself with an evil no matter how small is to forget that seeds grow. A small seed of evil will grow out of control just like planting weeds for the flowers will have its consequences. Compromise is not given as a right by the Savior who compromised nothing to gain our freedom through His death. Those who simply call themselves pro life must be forced to see that Romney is and has not been pro life in his political endeavors. As an individual he preached no abortions but as soon as he needed votes he was "for the rights of every woman to choose." Now he needs votes and is pro life with exceptions, which I remind everyone THAT is still a choice to kill someone. We have played with the pro life game for 40 years, giving the sacrificial offering of the rape conceived. We have NOT ended abortion. Voting for Romney is deception and the game will continue until real pro lifers refuse to sacrifice any humans and will stand up to politicians who don't do their job as elected. I applaud Todd Akin for not being bullied into stepping down from the senate race in MO. He is a perfect example of the power of "WE THE PEOPLE" doing what is right. We the people do not have to adhere to being forced into a pen with only two choices. There are more choices if people would just look at them.It's not about "perfection" as some are saying but it's about core values that Romney nor Obama have in the slightest. Let's actually be the people that the declaration of Independence talked about with real power to change."

Bill Muehlenberg,  explores the major cultural, social and political issues of the day at CultureWatch.  He has an article in defense of voting for Mitt Romney.  The following is from Obama, Believers, the Election, and Evil:

"There are far too many believers who are rather mixed up on some very important issues facing us. I refer particularly to perhaps the most important election America has ever faced. The great evil which Obama has unleashed on America and the world has been well documented both here and elsewhere.

And that evil will only be compounded exponentially if he gets back in for a second term. Yet the purists – whom I have discussed before – will sit back and smugly pat themselves on the back as they allow all this to happen. They will foolishly take pride in how “pure” and “righteous” they kept themselves – just like the Pharisees. Yet they are guilty of great complicity in evil.

They will go on and on about how they just can’t vote for Romney, when all they are really telling us is they are quite willing to see Obama get back in. That is the only reality that exists here. Not to vote for Romney is to cast a de facto vote for Obama. That is the simple truth here."  Read the rest of the article here.


Paul Stark said...

There are hugely significant differences between Obama and Romney with regard how they will influence abortion -- via executive orders (Mexico City Policy), federal legislation (e.g., Obamacare, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act), court nominations (two opportunities in the last 4 years to tilt the Supreme Court against Roe v. Wade were lost, because we had elected Obama), and more. Lives are at stake here. To vote for the best viable candidate (Romney) is not to vote for "the lesser of two evils" but to vote for less evil (and more good), as Randy Alcorn puts it. It is a positive choice, given the options available, to advance justice and the common good to the greatest degree possible. It is simply mistaken to suggest that to vote for an imperfect candidate is to intend to endorse everything he stands for, or to compromise your own views. That's not what a vote is. Our vote is something that we must use wisely in whatever way will make the most difference.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Carl G. Oehling said...

God requires us to vote for a man who is afraid of Jehovah, plain and simple. Do the voters ask if the candidate is afraid of Jehovah? Obviously not.