Romney’s stance that a life begins at conception — that is, at the moment the egg and sperm meet — poses a staggeringly one-dimensional approach to the issue.
If the presidential candidate truly believes that every fertilized egg is a life, why is he not equally adamant about shutting down all in vitro fertilization clinics, which terminate several “lives” each time the procedure is exercised?
Why is he not determined to ban the birth control pill, which often works by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, therefore “killing” the egg?
Why does he provide exceptions for rape victims? If his argument is that abortion is murder, why is murder ever acceptable even if the woman
was raped?
By stating that only under the circumstances of consensual sex should a “life” be preserved, the voter can draw one of two conclusions: either Romney doesn’t value every life equally, or he is more interested in teaching women a lesson for having voluntary sex than he is in saving lives.
Assuming the latter, Romney is essentially saying that if the woman was raped, it is not her fault, and she has been through enough. She shouldn’t have to deal with the pregnancy. In this case, murder can be excused. But if she chose to have sex and she got pregnant, she should have to deal with the consequences. Aborting this pregnancy would be murderous.
This leads to further question Romney’s assertion that he has the unborn child’s well-being at heart. It seems as though this “life” is valued exclusively … until the child is born. If the candidate was serious about doing what is best for this child, why is he planning on welfare cuts? What happens to a baby whose mother is impoverished? How is cutting her welfare opportunities helping this child that Romney has come to care about so much?
The candidate faces a difficult conflict being a member of the LDS Church. His church’s official stance states that, “Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for abortions may lose their membership in the Church.” Even with the United States constitution glaring him in the face, separation of church and state on this issue may not be an option for Romney.
The governor must impose his religion on the rest of the country with respect to this matter because should he “encourage” or “pay for” (in reference to his plans to cut funding for Planned Parenthood) abortions, he faces serious consequences in his church life.
Religious morals should indeed affect how a candidate lives his own life. However, church and state are separate under the law, and if one chooses to disregard the Constitution in order to uphold his church status, he cannot be trusted to abide by the foundations of this country. Romney is running for office under the United States government, not the Mormon Church.
Regardless of religious preference, voluntary sex (without the intent of conception) is a subjective, personal choice, not at the mercy of the government. Asserting himself as “pro-life” is inaccurate and untrue. Unless Romney’s definition of life extends to every fertilized egg, his pro-life stance is not only disingenuous, but it is offensive to women who are entitled to their own medical decisions.
