Romney is pro-abortion
#1
So this settles it for me.  As a pro-abortion candidate, there's not much to distinguish Romney from Obama, although his policies on the economy, etc., are what America needs to get back on the road from financial disaster.  The GOP pro-life plan is "no exceptions," and Romney differs and disagrees.

Will my one vote not cast be a vote for Obama?  Or do I cast in with Romney to defeat Obama though it would mean I can become an accessory to sin.  No thanks.  There isn'ta case of a lesser evil here because the evil of abortion is on par on both sides.  Even Catholic Paul Ryan joins the Romeny band wagon and will follow his boss' policy on abortion.  SO this means, Ryan joins those other "Catholics" Pelosi,Biden, et al.

Quote:Jane Romney: Mitt Romney Won't Ban Abortion

Mitt Romney's sister weighed in on the Republican presidential candidate's abortion stance on Wednesday, insisting that her brother would not make abortion illegal if he is elected president.
"He’s not going to be touching any of that," Jane Romney told National Journal after a "Women for Mitt" event in Tampa. "It's not his focus."

The former governor's abortion position has been the subject of scrutiny in recent weeks, following public outcry over Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin's widely condemned "legitimate rape" comments. Akin, along with Romney running mate Paul Ryan and dozens of other Republicans, believes there should be no exceptions for abortion in cases of incest or rape. During Tuesday's session of the Republican National Convention, the GOP approved a platform calling for a constitutional abortion ban with no specified exceptions.

Earlier this week, Romney clarified his stance during an interview with CBS News.

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

Jane Romney, who said she personally believes that abortion should be legal, said an abortion ban would "never" happen under a Romney administration.

"Women would take to the streets," she said. "Women fought for our choice, we're not going to go back."

Jane Romney, Mitt's eldest sister, has been described as a "loose cannon" by Romney biographer Ronald B. Scott. An actress living in Los Angeles, Jane Romney has previously supported Democratic candidates, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and California Governor Jerry Brown.


Huckabee asked Romney:

Quote:"My position has been clear throughout this campaign," Romney said. "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."

Mike Huckabee: "would you have supported a constitutional amendment declaring that life begins at conception"

Mitt Romney: "absolutely"

Did he not understand the question Jane? Or do you lie every chance you get as well?


Just shows he is still clueless and ignorant. At this point in time, he flip-flops and waffles, he really shows he doesn't understand much and may rely on Ryan to run things.

I can't vote for this waffler. What difference betweeen him and Obama? A whilre face and black face. that's all.

Reply
#2
Vote for the Chastisement.

That will sort things out.
Reply
#3
Yes, but his wife buys his shirts at Costco, so it's a wash.
Reply
#4
(08-30-2012, 07:16 AM)Vincentius Wrote: Huckabee asked Romney:

Quote:"My position has been clear throughout this campaign," Romney said. "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."

Mike Huckabee: "would you have supported a constitutional amendment declaring that life begins at conception"

Mitt Romney: "absolutely"

Did he not understand the question Jane? Or do you lie every chance you get as well?

So let me get this straight: Life begins at conception, which means that it is a human being; and it is guilty of no criminal offense, which means it is innocent in the eyes of law; but we can murder that innocent human being in the name of safeguarding the well-being of another, who is a more important human being . . .
Reply
#5
Old news. Almost every politician holds the same position.
Reply
#6
(08-30-2012, 09:17 AM)OldMan Wrote: Old news. Almost every politician holds the same position.

True enough. But that does raise a question.

Why do people insist on re-inventing the wheel or are willing start from scratch, with every "choice" they are offered by the powers behind the scenes?

I would say it comes from a kind of innocence in which we are looking for the good in people and striving to find some key that will allow us to vote for the better man, or in modern parlance, the lesser of two evils.

The time wasted in such endeavors, and the confusion caused in individual souls and the population as a whole, boggles the mind.

We are voting for the King of the Jungle. That is modern society in a nutshell. Survival of the fittest. Newtonian Physics used as a justification for the inherent unfairness of the economic system they have developed on earth.

Is it any wonder that evolution is an idea that can take hold? When we live in a society in which the powerful treat us serfs like animals and we willing take their collars?

It's called alchemy folks. Or to modernize the term, I think brainwashing will do.

Enjoy the election season.


Reply
#7
(08-30-2012, 08:38 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 07:16 AM)Vincentius Wrote: Huckabee asked Romney:

Quote:"My position has been clear throughout this campaign," Romney said. "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."

Mike Huckabee: "would you have supported a constitutional amendment declaring that life begins at conception"

Mitt Romney: "absolutely"

Did he not understand the question Jane? Or do you lie every chance you get as well?

So let me get this straight: Life begins at conception, which means that it is a human being; and it is guilty of no criminal offense, which means it is innocent in the eyes of law; but we can murder that innocent human being in the name of safeguarding the well-being of another, who is a more important human being . . .

This makes it worse, because he knows when life begins, but is okay with murder. At least someone like Pelosi can claim to not know.
Reply
#8
They're not the same.  One believes in allowing abortion for rape, incest and the health of the mother.  The other believes in abortion on demand, for any reason and at any point during pregnancy.  It is wrong to say they are the same.
Reply
#9
(08-30-2012, 11:03 AM)Melkite Wrote: They're not the same.  One believes in allowing abortion for rape, incest and the health of the mother.  The other believes in abortion on demand, for any reason and at any point during pregnancy.  It is wrong to say they are the same.

I see what you're saying, but one says that it's not a human being at all so it can be killed for selfish reasons; the other acknowledges that it is an innoccent human being and then endorses the murder of it.

They are both cruel and heartless, but the logic of the second makes even less sense than the first.
Reply
#10
(08-30-2012, 11:16 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 11:03 AM)Melkite Wrote: They're not the same.  One believes in allowing abortion for rape, incest and the health of the mother.  The other believes in abortion on demand, for any reason and at any point during pregnancy.  It is wrong to say they are the same.

So it's only an innocent human being if it wasn't conceived in an offense against the state?

No, I'm saying the positions aren't the same.  Romney's position may be qualitatively as evil, but it is quantitatively less evil.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)