Mitt Romney’s Rape and Incest Exceptions for Abortion

Posted on October 10, 2012


A couple of weeks ago, I posted why I’m not voting for Mitt Romney (and with a clear conscience) this presidential election. In just two weeks, the article is the 6th most viewed article of all time here on airō, and the 4th most viewed this year. The article also has the most facebook “likes” of any other article I’ve posted (currently at 950). I mention these stats to point out this is clearly a critical topic for many people, and to my surprise, many more people than I first thought are working through how they will be voting differently than the status quo this election season, considering the options.

Though I gave Mitt Romney’s position on life as my primary reason for not voting for him, it was overlooked by some and perceived that my main reason for not voting for Romney is his Mormonism. That is not the case, and as I said in the article, Romney’s Mormonism is the least of my reasons for not voting for him.

In this article, I would like to spend time elaborating on why Romney’s position on life precludes me from voting for him. If you recall from the article Addressing Arguments to Vote for Mitt Romney, I provided a litmus test a candidate must pass in order for me to consider voting for them: their positions on life, marriage, and Israel. If they disagree with me on any of these issues, they will not get my vote. Period. Regarding life, one must be 100% pro-life, making no exceptions for abortion. Period. Romney fails the test. He therefore does not get my vote. It’s that simple. Really.

There are a few different arguments I have observed over the last few weeks to convince Christians to look past Romney’s exceptions for abortion (exceptions in the case of rape and incest). The arguments go something like this:

If Obama wins, zero babies will be protected from abortion by the government, but if Romney wins, most babies will be protected from abortion by the government…If you don’t vote for Romney, what you’re saying is you would rather 100 babies die than 99 babies live and one baby die…

Then those who take the position that all life is precious and on that principle we will not vote for Romney, we are accused of being pious hypocrites, irresponsible, illogical, and not living in reality. This article, then, is primarily addressed to Christians using such arguments, straw men, and personal attacks to convince other Christians to vote for Mitt Romney. I hope it is beneficial for all.

(Note that I am not telling you how to vote, but further telling you why I will not be voting for Mitt Romney).

To reiterate, Mitt Romney claims to be pro-life, but he does make exceptions for abortion in the case of rape and incest. In this video from December 2011, Romney makes clear,

In the case of rape, incest, or risk to the life of the mother, I believe in those circumstances that abortion should be legal.

During an August 27, 2012 interview, Romney affirmed,

My position has been clear throughout this campaign. I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.

To put it another way, Romney is in favor of murdering children limb by limb in the mother’s womb in the case of rape and incest. Obama is also in favor of murdering children limb by limb in the mother’s womb, he’s just more liberal about it.

Perhaps an illustration or two will help.

Illustration 1

Suppose Candidate A favors the woman’s “choice” to murder her baby up to six months after birth. The reason for killing the child does not matter – it’s all legal. On the other hand, Candidate B is against the woman’s “choice” to murder her baby up to six months after birth, except when the baby has a disability (such as Down syndrome). According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 1 out of 691 babies are born with Down syndrome in the United States each year. This means that out of the 4 million babies born each year, 6,000 will be diagnosed with Down syndrome. So for our example, if Candidate B won the election and the laws were changed to reflect his position, up to 6,000 babies could be legally murdered up to 6 months after birth (just in the case of Down syndrome alone).

This really isn’t too far from reality today. Physicians for Life reports that 70% of all pregnant women in the United States choose to have prenatal screen tests, which may reveal certain genetic abnormalities. When Down syndrome is diagnosed prenatally , it is reported that 84% to 91% of those babies will be killed by abortion (source).

Truly, what is the difference between a baby inside the womb being murdered for having Down syndrome versus the 6 month old baby being murdered for having Down syndrome? Does it not show the hypocrisy of society who is outraged that 14 year old Cassidy Goodson murdered her newborn baby because she “didn’t know what to do with it”? According to police, Cassidy

used scissors to pry the baby out of her body and into the toilet. Lifting the baby out of the toilet, Goodson “placed her hands on the infant’s neck and squeezed until he wasn’t moving or breathing any longer.”

Why should society, or the government, be outraged at this when society and government cherishes and fights for a woman’s “right” to have a Dilation and Evacuation Abortion (D & E) where the baby’s body parts are grasped at random with a long toothed clamp, then each arm and leg is ripped off one at a time, then the baby’s torso and insides are torn a part until nothing remains but the head, then the head is grasped and crushed in order to remove it from the womb, then  the remainder of the “contents” are suctioned until the uterus is emptied.

Yes, friends, this is gruesome, but this it is the sick reality of the evil of abortion. And it shows the hypocrisy of our nation who condemns Cassidy’s act but celebrates the very same murderous act against babies in the womb 3,700 times a day in America.

Whether the baby has Down syndrome or not, should not, and must not, the murder of babies inside or outside the womb be illegal? Getting back to the illustration, while Candidate A’s election would result in more babies being murdered, Candidate B’s election still results in the legalized murder of up to 6,000 babies every year (just in the case of Down syndrome alone).

If 1.3 million babies are murdered each year in America, Romney’s position allows for the murder of 13,700 babies each year (1% of abortions result from rape or incest). This is an even higher rate of abortion than the hypothetical illustration given in this post! Just as I would not vote for Candidate B, I cannot vote for Mitt Romney who favors the murder of children conceived through the violent crime of their father.

Illustration #2

God commanded Israel to not sacrifice their children to the false god Molech. He warned them in Deuteronomy 18:10, but in 2 King 17:17 we see they violated His command and “burned their sons and daughters as offerings”.” Concerning Israel’s rebellion, Jeremiah prophesied the following in Jeremiah 7:30-32:

For the sons of Judah have done evil in my sight, declares the LORD. They have set their detestable things in the house that is called by my name, to defile it. 31And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind. 32Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when it will no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Topheth, because there is no room elsewhere.

Jeremiah later prophesied the judgment of the Lord in chapter 19:

You shall say, ‘Hear the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I am bringing such disaster upon this place that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle. 4Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, 5and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind— 6therefore, behold, days are coming, declares the LORD, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.

With this background laid, suppose Israel obeyed God’s command to not sacrifice their sons and daughters to Baal, except when their babies had a disability. They reasoned that babies with disabilities would not have a fulfilled life and neither could they contribute to society, so they took it upon themselves to cleanse their gene pool by shedding the blood of their innocent children on these altars of demons. Surely, many babies were allowed to live, so sacrificing a few babies to please Molech could not be a bad thing, could it? How do you think God would have reacted to such a scenario? I think you know the answer to that question – He would have judged them just the same.

Just like ancient Israel, Isaiah 59:7 rings true for society today:

Their feet run to evil, and they are swift to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; desolation and destruction are in their highways.

God is not silent on His hatred of the shedding of innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17). And just like destruction came upon Israel for their rebellion against God, I believe a principle can be drawn that God will destroy all nations who celebrate the shedding of innocent blood and sacrifice innocent children on the altar of self. A nation that makes exceptions for abortion in the case of rape and incest is still storing up wrath for itself as is the nation who openly embraces the shedding of blood in any and all cases. America today is the modern day Valley of Slaughter, and I believe judgment awaits her.

Conclusion

Whether babies are murdered inside the womb or outside the womb, whether they are murdered for the crime of their father, or whether they are murdered out of convenience, or whether they are murdered because of genetic abnormalities, it matters not. It’s murder. For me, the argument isn’t that Mitt Romney believes in saving most babies, the argument is that Romney believes in murdering some babies.

I keep hearing about how “moral” Mitt Romney is. That may be true in other areas of his life (on the outside), however, it is by no means moral to murder any child ever. I cannot in good conscience vote for a person who favors tormenting and barbaricly tearing babies a part because the father has violated the mother in a heinous crime. To quote an Abolitionist poster,

rape and abortion are wrong for the same reason: they are both violent acts of aggression upon other people’s bodies.

The only difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on the issue of abortion is the degree to which they are willing to keep the murder of children legal in this nation.

The principle I draw from Scripture is that I am not obligated to vote for anyone who shares either Obama’s or Romney’s position. I would be violating my conscience if I chose to do so. Truthfully, I believe the burden is on the Christian to justify how they can vote for either one, not on the Christian who had decided to not vote given the reasoning discussed in this article. But at the end of the day, this is between each of us and the Lord.

Yes, I believe the nation will be better off with Mitt Romney. Yes, I believe the economy has a better chance to improve, we will have a stronger foreign policy, we will be a better friend to Israel, and we might get a conservative judge or two appointed to the Supreme Court. Be that as it may, Mitt Romney fails on the issue of life, and for that primary reason I will not vote for him.

If your conscience allows you to vote for Mitt Romney, fine, do it. I’m happy for you. If he wins, the country might be better for it. But my conscience won’t allow it, and I hope I’ve clearly explained why. Let us both be submitted to the Lord in whatever we decide, and let us bear with one another in love and be in agreement about things of first importance,  namely the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and the salvation of  souls.

Advertisements