ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) - Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s stance on abortion was in the spotlight Tuesday when said that he supports abortion if the “life of the mother is at risk.”
At a breakfast in Council Bluffs, IA, the former governor was asked a question about abortion – a touchy subject since he once supported abortion rights, but now holds an anti-abortion position.
“My view is that if there is a circumstance where the life of the mother is at risk by virtue of proceeding with the pregnancy, then abortion in that case is acceptable,” Romney said. "I do not believe it is immoral in that case. I know other people feel differently."
When Romney ran for US Senate in Massachusetts in 1994, he supported abortion rights. As a presidential candidate, Romney has said that he is pro-life.
– From CNN Assignment Editor Marissa Muller
We should be more focused on the aftermath of abortion on the living. Many, many of these young women live a lifetime of pain because of this one choice. Others need to know more about that choice before it has to be made. No doubt it would help reduce those choices being made..
Where, oh where, in any of the dialogue about abortion, is there mention of the man's responsibility? Procreation is not a one-way street. I suspect if men were held equally liable (or even partially liable) in this equation, the rhetoric around abortion would be much quieter. Put up (use self control, birth control) or shut up, guys (and gals – it takes two to make a baby). P.S. All you pro-lifers – adopt an unwanted baby.
A woman can always have another child if she has an abortion in order to save her life (albeit it is a difficult decision). But to let a woman die & have an infant live motherless is even more heartless & unmerciful to that child. Being an RN I could not let a mother die for the possibility the fetus might live. However, other nurses would state otherwise. It is a medical, moral and ethical decision between the Doctor, the mother & father and their Higher Power. No one else should impose their own personal/religious and spiritual beliefs on someone else. Their is only 1 God, if you so chose to accept that, but many paths to get there. No one religion or religious belief should be above another.
L. Elizabeth and Sue, I hear and understand both of your viewpoints and I especially agree with the opinion that under certain circumstances abortion is necessary. And while some would consider me "pro-choice", the fact remains that we cannot continue to have this conversation in clear-cut black and white terms. I am "pro-the government staying out of a woman's conversation between her and her higher power/conscience". We have a duty to stand firm and fight for the freedom this country was founded upon; even though we, ourselves, might not choose to follow a certain personal path, we're obligated (as Americans) to assure that all personal paths are clear. The restriction of our freedom is the dismantling of our nation.
I love how a stupid old man can have the nerve to put his two senses on a woman's decision to have a child or not. A man breaks into a family's house, stabs the mother, father and son, then rapes the daughter which they find that she is pregnant.....and a stupid old man feels the need to open his mouth.
If a pregnancy occurs based on choice (consenting...whether purposefully or by accident), I believe the pregnancy should be carried to term. If a pregnancy occurs not based on choice (rape or incest), then I believe it should be the mother's option (often based upon her religion), whether to carry that pregnancy to term or not. In cases of a health threat (of life or death significance), I feel the option should go to preserving the life of the mother. I believe my opinion coincides with the dictates of my faith.
Mitt Romney is being disengeniuos when he says that he is now pro-life because of the stem cell issue. Give me a break.
Mr. Romney had to take a pro-choice position to run for Senator or be elected Governor in Massachusetts.
He is now pro-life because that would increase his chances with conservative Republicans nationally in the primaries.
He knows full well the reality of abortion. It is the taking of unborn human life. It is the destruction of fetal life.
Any casual medical research on abortion would show that is the case.
He knows full well human fetal development during pregancy.
I am frankly shocked that a Mormon would ever be pro-choice. I would think his church would condemn that position. I don't get it.
Also, it is a shame that the Democratic candidates for president have to "toe the line" with pro-choice groups to get elected also. They are a good number of pro-life Democrats around.
Each pregnancy and each woman has their own unique and individual circumstance. Personally, I don't feel anyone has the right to interfere with their decision.
What about the young woman who has no support from the father? Who has no job or means to provide for a child but yet finds herself alone with the sole responsibility. I hear many people condeming abortions but very few condeming the fathers who played an intrinsic role in the conception of life and then fled from their responsibilities.
I see many young mothers on Social Assistance trying to provide for their chid on their own. Is this morally right?
Some feel the solution is for the mother to put her child up for adoption. There are many babies waiting to be adopted and many couples who can't afford the price to give them a home. And many mothers lying awake at night wondering if their baby found a good home.
Each woman has to live with the choice they make in this situation. And it is a very traumatic experience for most if not all. And a choice they will live with for the rest of their life.
I believe it is solely the Mother's or the couple's choice to make. I do not believe any Political, Religious, or Community Based Faction has a right to interfer regardless of the individual circumstance.