Truth Comes Out: Romney Supports Child Murder in Cases of Convenience
It was already well known that Mitt Romney supported the killing of unborn children in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. While theologians have argued extensively about the permissability of the "life of the mother" exception, there is utter moral deplorability in rape and incest exceptions, because the argument, "evil was done to me, therefore I will murder you to ease my pain" simply doesn't hold up.
However, it now comes out that Mitt Romney would also permit abortions in the case of the "health" of the mother. This is codespeak for "convenience". Courts have long held that the "health" of the mother equates to mental distress, and so "health" is generally applied to a plurality, if not a majority of abortion cases. 93% + of the time an unborn child is murdered, it is done out of convenience.
With this now in mind, I see little to no substantive difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama and so I will have to withhold my vote from either. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a man who believes that murdering unborn children (the absolute poorest and "least of these" among us) is morally permissable in such broad cases. This used to be an issue of choosing the lesser of so many evils, but that line is so blurred as to become almost unrecognizable.
Sorry America, but you've chosen your fate.
However, it now comes out that Mitt Romney would also permit abortions in the case of the "health" of the mother. This is codespeak for "convenience". Courts have long held that the "health" of the mother equates to mental distress, and so "health" is generally applied to a plurality, if not a majority of abortion cases. 93% + of the time an unborn child is murdered, it is done out of convenience.
With this now in mind, I see little to no substantive difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama and so I will have to withhold my vote from either. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a man who believes that murdering unborn children (the absolute poorest and "least of these" among us) is morally permissable in such broad cases. This used to be an issue of choosing the lesser of so many evils, but that line is so blurred as to become almost unrecognizable.
Sorry America, but you've chosen your fate.
so in not voteing for Romney, you have decited to just not vote at all? If that's the case then you have no right what so ever to complain about Obama or Ronney.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you are one of those people who vote for Ron Paul, then you are giving your vote to Obama; and therefor still have no right to complain.
Your comment assumes that our highest duty is to vote and to influence the direction of the country.
ReplyDeleteOur highest duty is not to wallow in the lesser of two evils, but to lean on God and His moral authority for our lives.
We are not in control and we do not have to move in fear, but resting in Him.
It is in Him alone that this country will be healed and not in any man, president, congress, senate or supreme court.
Our hope is in the name of the Lord!
Must we choose between the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet. I am certainly not equating either Obama or Romney with these, but pointing out the falacy of this kind of thinking.
If both candidates dishonor God - a cultish Mormon or some universalist with no allegiance to God's word, must I endorse one or the other.
I cannot.
My sentiments exactly! (:
ReplyDeleteme too gary and greg.
ReplyDelete