bluesinG said:
About the validity of choosing between the "lesser of two evils": Fair enough. But I disagree that Mourdock's view--that God intends for some women to become pregnant through rape--constitutes a small evil. He had clearly thought a lot about the issue before expressing his view, he's stood by his comments today, and if elected he would support legislation banning abortion even in the case of rape. What bigger evil is Joe Donnelly (Mourdock's opponent) guilty of, that Mourdock isn't also guilty of? I'm guessing that Mourdock supports drone strikes or indefinite detention. |
See.. what your conflating here now... is your (and my) view of evil, with Mitt Romney's and Mourdocks.
Sure based on what you or I know about the election... we'd vote donnelly however...
Mitt Romney doesn't see Drone strikes as evil, and i don't know his opinion on the NDAA. So such things would be irrelevent on if he should remove his support. The reference was just showing that to most democrats, even things that bad, that generally fly against most liberals (all?) beliefs aren't enough to shake support.
Mitt Romney, at the moment is at least positioning himself as Pro Life. Whether this is actually the case or not i'm unsure based on his past history.
Assuming he is telling the truth though... generally the Pro Life position tends to be "A fetus = a baby."
So if I were to critisize Mitt Romney for anything. It would be that he WASN'T supporting Mourdocks comments... and that if you see a fetus as a babies it's pretty henious to support legislation that allows the killing of some babies based on their heritage. I don't see it that way, but as far as I can tell... his positions come to that conclusion.