Perry (in Iowa, Natch) Changes Abortion Position: Now No Abortion Even if Rape or Incest

It sounds like over Christmas Texas Gov. Rick Perry paid a visit to Mitt Romney’s or Newt Gingrich’s flip-flop outlets:

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry on Tuesday declared that had undergone a “transformation” and no longer supported abortion in cases of rape or incest.

During a campaign event in Iowa, Full Faith Christian Center pastor Joshua Verwers noted that Perry used to believe that abortion was acceptable for victims of rape and incest, but the Texas governor had recently signed a Personhood USA pledge that says abortion should be illegal in all cases.

“To me it seems kind of like a contradiction where you were a month ago,” Verwers said.

“You’re seeing a transformation,” Perry explained. “That transformation was after watching the DVD Gift of Life. And I really started giving some thought about the issue of rape and incest.”

I hope Iowa voters aren’t watching DVDs of The Three Stooges. If so, Perry might have to duck.

More blog reactioincan be seen here.

         

30 Comments

  1. Wow. How nice to know that Gov Perry deems himself able to make that decision for me if I was raped and became pregnant as a result. That I should have to bring to term and live with a constant reminder of what I can only hope is the worst thing to ever happen to me. That is definitely a decision that lies in the public domain and not a personal one.

    Big Govt much Gov Perry? Screw anyone that thinks they have the right to make that decision for someone else.

  2. Why kill the child’s chance at life? Why should a child never have a life because it was made by force? Can’t the child be born and then adopted by a nice family somewhere?

    How does two wrongs make a right?

  3. WTF Allen
    I know your a male, but rape isn’t a reason for even Plan B morning after pill. I ho0pe you never spend a night in jail, maybe your rape could yield a love child…

  4. “Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don’t have to buy from a foreign source,” – governor Rick Perry.

    This man is George Bush on long-term steroids, but without Bush’s considerable intelligence.

  5. Anyone who is on board with forced childbirth in cases of rape or incest is no better than the rapist himself. There is no way to say it any nicer than that.

  6. Hmmm, methinks there is some other person involved here that might have something to say. I know people like Perry and Allen consider that other person little more than a hole and an incubator, but surely her feelings on this might be of some importance in the matter. Hey, she’s already been violated and ruined for the only thing she’s good for, so what’s another nine months of forcing her nether regions to do what these men want them to?

  7. roro,

    Nice to hear from you and to see you tell it like it is. More important, to tell it with the authority in matters that none of us men around here have one iota of experience in. Have a great New Year.

  8. Hi Dorian, hope you’ve had an excellent holiday season so far.

    What I don’t understand is how so many can be so lacking in compassion for the other human beings involved in this sort of tragic situation that they come to the conclusion that their personal opinion is more important than that of the person carrying the zygote/fetus/baby of her attacker. As you might recall, my personal morality rests heavily the idea that we all own our own bodies — more than we own our money or our things. The idea that society can force us to carry a child against our will is just such a gross violation of our own humanity. The idea that such a thing would be mandated after that woman (or girl, in some cases) has already undergone a life-changing trauma at the hand of another just seems…cruel for cruelty’s sake.

  9. cruel for cruelty’s sake

    While I can understand your viewpoint and mayhap there are some people who would indeed enjoy the suffering of others, few I hope, the idea that people support “right to life” for cruelty’s sake seems more malignant than anything else.

    Now for a frame of reference I do not support major restrictions on abortion and have even volunteered as an escort at a womens clinic in the past. I do feel that any abortion past a point where the child could survive if born is obviously infanticide. I don’t think that in every case that it would be wrong but lets call it what it is. I feel in cases where we withhold treatment or heavily prescribe meds for “pain” in order to achieve death then I see little difference between that and euthanasia. I think dealing with it instead of how we handle things now would be better and healthier. I am not particularly religious.

    All that being said if you are religious and/or you believe that life begins at conception and there is something sacred about life, it is hard to conscience abortion under any circumstance and not be a hypocrite. I understand that not allowing a woman to abort a child conceived by violation may indeed be a continuation of the original assault, but if you believe in the “being” of the child how can you say they should die due to others actions? If you hold that belief what else can you say? I don’t think I am there but to call everyone who does cruel ………..

  10. First off we decide when life starts. Its a social thing. And we have decided that in legal terms, the start of life isn’t conception, not with regards to the zygotes rights over the full grown mother’s. The idea that someone else, can force a woman to carry to term a rape child is horrifying to me. Allen you think its no big deal to carry a baby to term? sure, just pop that bun out of the oven in 9 months, every day reliving your rape.

    Here’s the deal, this is a free country right? If you think that fetus is so special when you can raped and knocked up you go ahead and keep it. When I get raped and knocked up I’ll do what I feel is in my best interest. Keep it, abort it, ITS UP TO ME!

    Again, people making these decisions for others, making it law because the bible says so, disgust me. I really can’t think of a more personal decision. How anyone could be so arrogant to think they have a right to make it for me is just hard to imagine.

  11. Oh and about the idea that as long as it can be born and live its a baby, let me throw you a hypothetical. Skip to the not too distant future when we can fertilize an egg and grow it to term outside the mother entirely. So now conception becomes the medically viable start point for the baby. Has technology now made your definition of baby killing to include any abortion? Did the moral yard-line change because we have better technology?

    What about the potential of all the eggs that every woman carries? These can all be made into a person, isn’t not doing so, not carrying to term the potential for life in all of them, a form of birth control? Obviously it gets absurd pretty quick, and that’s when people step in and as a group we decide where the line is drawn. There is a difference between legal and moral, and just because it isn’t outlawed doesn’t mean people won’t have the right to act in accordance with their personal beliefs. What I can’t tolerate is when people wish to extend their personal beliefs to others, forcing them to their way of life when it has no impact on them. That is wrong, and is not what this country is about.

  12. Incidentally, I have located only one place in the bible dealing with this. Miscarriage as a result of violence, Exodus 21:22. Says if a man’s violence results in injury to a pregnant woman, causes a miscarriage but no other harm, then that man is to pay a fine. The amount of the fine is up to the woman’s husband. So theoretically, nothing if the husband so chooses. The punishments for murder was death. Obviously even old testament-laying-down-the-law God didn’t consider a fetus of equal stature to someone who was born.

  13. For me its also a hypocrisy issue. These social conservatives want smaller government when it comes to subsidized health care- but want bigger government when it comes to private decisions that a woman has the right to make about her own body. In other words if someone passes out in the street and has no insurance they would figuratively step over them- but if a woman is raped, well then its their business what she does with an unwanted pregnancy.

  14. First off we decide when life starts. Its a social thing. And we have decided that in legal terms, the start of life isn’t conception, not with regards to the zygotes rights over the full grown mother’s. The idea that someone else, can force a woman to carry to term a rape child is horrifying to me.

    Well isn’t this discusion part of that decision making process? If so then how can it be a real process if you try and shut out what a signifgant minotity are saying about the issue?

  15. Oh and about the idea that as long as it can be born and live its a baby, let me throw you a hypothetical.

    Screw your hypothetical. “What if a cow jumped over the freecking moon?” Who cares. Lets deal with right now. If a woman terminates a pregnancy and she is past the point where they could induce and possible save the baby then it is little to no difference from infanticide. Now I’m not even an absolutist on the morality of that issue but to try and pretend it’s otherwise is BS.

  16. For me its also a hypocrisy issue. These social conservatives want smaller government when it comes to subsidized health care- but want bigger government when it comes to private decisions that a woman has the right to make about her own body.

    That’s just silly. Yes many want smaller Govt, as in smaller than right now. That doesn’t mean no govt or that there is no role for govt at all and to pretend it does is ignorant or intelectualy dishonest.

  17. The issue is that our bodies need to belong to ourselves, EEllis. In the cases where we share our bodies with other people, the first priority needs to go to the ability of a person to own his or her own body. If a person might die by not using the body and organs of another person, the owner of that body can choose to use his or her organs to keep the other person alive, if they so choose. We do not mandate giving up our extra kidney to save someone who needs it. When people do give up their organs to save the lives of others, we rightfully call them heroes, but we do not mandate as law that they must, even if the recipient will die otherwise. Neither should we force women to share their wombs, bloodstreams, and private parts with other human beings if they choose not to. Yes, to take away the ownership a woman (or girl) has over her own body, is always cruel. She loses the one thing that should always belong to her. But to do so after her autonomy has already been horribly violated is beyond gross. You have to literally disregard the humanity of the woman or girl involved to advocate such a thing.

    There’s very little worry about post-viability abortions, as they represent only about 1% of abortions, and they are essentially all for reasons of health of the fetus or the mother. They are already dire situations.

  18. Its not just a hypothetical. The date at which we can keep babies alive gets shorter and shorter. You are basically saying that the state of our technology determines the moral point at which point you think it is infanticide. I disagree. I do not think a fetus should be equated with a person. Its absurd to me to equate potential with actual, and to shift the morality of an action based on shifting technology. Even more so to force a woman into giving birth when she doesn’t want to.

  19. Mine was the fifth comment, but may not be showing up as it is still “awaiting moderation”. I’ll tone it down and just say that forced childbirth, especially in cases of rape or incest is in a word, barbaric. It is disturbing to see a large portion of our society still rooted in such backward thinking when it comes to this issue. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if men were capable of becoming pregnant, abortion would be legal, safe, easily available and non-controversial.

  20. You are basically saying that the state of our technology determines the moral point at which point you think it is infanticide. I disagree. I do not think a fetus should be equated with a person. Its absurd to me to equate potential with actual, and to shift the morality of an action based on shifting technology.

    Well I think there is a dividing line that tech will not cross as to the viability of a child to survive being “born”. I don’t think tech decides our morality but rather reveals a point at which no reasonable person can still argue about the “personhood” of a child. If that child can survive being born then it’s hard to argue it’s an unthinking clump of cells. While it’s unfortunate that it took the advancement of neonatal care to “prove” that fact it didn’t change the point at which a child is a person just defined a smaller range where one could even argue.

  21. Perhaps it would be as well for everyone to read the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup.....13_ZO.html

    It not only cites women’s right to privacy in their actions and reservation of rights to citizens in the 14th and 9th amendment, it discusses the fact that objection to abortion is a recent (20th century) occurrence.

    It states that personhood under the law applies only to persons after birth and states:
    [until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.]

    I know of no constitutional amendment that restricts the right of women to privacy in the determination of their actions.

  22. Addition to edit: “objection to abortion” should read “criminalization of abortion” and “(20th century)” should read “(late 19th century)”

    Section VI

  23. “If that child can survive being born then it’s hard to argue it’s an unthinking clump of cells.”

    Again, this is not the argument that’s being made. As I’ve already said, 3rd trimester abortions are extremely rare, and are only done under dire circumstances.

  24. “If that child can survive being born then it’s hard to argue it’s an unthinking clump of cells.”

    EE, sure we can keep a child alive, sometimes, at 24 weeks or so now. But only with a HUGE amount of artificial help. On its own a 24 month fetus would be dead in minutes outside the womb. Your line of could in fact be delineated by what country it was born in. Outside of a modern american neonatal ward the death is a crime, outside a mud hut in jungles of Papau New Guinea, its nature taking its course.

    And certainly within my lifetime we will absolutely be able to keep “a clump of fertilized cells” viable to 9 months. We may be able to do it from single cell fertilization in my lifetime. So what does that do for your demarcation of moral crime when it happens? Might as well start asking ourselves that now because it WILL happen. And its relevant now since we have made it almost halfway to that point in the last hundred years so lets not pretend its not going to be something we need to think about.

    If anything I say we draw the line at which a fetus can be reasonably said to live outside the mother with basic care available in the 18th century. Warm, clean, available food, etc… But if you want to include how long it can live with the latest medical technology that doesn’t make sense.

  25. Again, this is not the argument that’s being made. As I’ve already said, 3rd trimester abortions are extremely rare, and are only done under dire circumstances.

    Roro you and Slam are having two different discusions here and it kind of is an argument he’s making. And let’s say normally or usualy rather than only.

    Personaly I get your argument and I understand your position. I don’t have a big issue with that until the child reaches viability. My main issue was the caracterzation of all who disagreed as evil sadists who just want to take away womens rights.

  26. If anything I say we draw the line at which a fetus can be reasonably said to live outside the mother with basic care available in the 18th century. Warm, clean, available food, etc… But if you want to include how long it can live with the latest medical technology that doesn’t make sense.

    Thank god some 80% or more of the US disagrees with you.

  27. You cannot escape the fact that if you choose to have an abortion, you have passed life ending judgment on another human being, and, you have done so for your own convenience sake. What is most disturbing to me, is that you have done this to a being that is half you. Your own child.

  28. What nonsense. People need to learn to mind thier own business. A woman’s body is her own, certainly within the first trimester.

  29. Allen, I must ask yet again: have you ever actually known a woman? Pregnancy, giving birth, and adopting out or raising a child is not an “inconvenience”. It might be the biggest thing we do as human beings. Not unlike my earlier comparison to giving a major organ to someone. And then having to pay for the procedures yourself. And in the cases involved in this particular conversation, the zygote is also half the woman’s (or girl’s) rapist. His own child. Like a souvineer to remember the good times.

  30. RORO-

    -[have you ever actually known a woman]-

    You are condescending. Try not being so. Billions of women agree with me, not you. I advocate having the child and adopting it out over abortion. You would know that had you read all of my comments on this thread.

    As far as the “zygote”. Remember “it” well in your dreams. You should have more conversations with Dorian. He seems to like you.

    Instead of: “Have an abortion if a child is inconvenient”

    May I make a suggestion….?

    Try: “Don’t have sex if a child is inconvenient”

    Believe it or not, the meaning of life is not about you alone.

Submit a Comment