This guy?
I won't be voting for Mittens, but I admit even somebody who pretends to be pro-life for political expediency is preferable to a proud, flat-out murderer like the African communist. I sure hope Ubama loses.
Posted on 10/21/2012 8:22:45 PM PDT by oneprolifewoman
Listening to fellow pundits on the left react with rage and disbelief to the support by the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, for halving the abortion time limit to 12 weeks, I was reminded of the late Christopher Hitchens. “[A]nyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows that emotions are not the deciding factor [in abortions],” wrote the Hitch in his column for the Nation magazine in April 1989. “In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain . . . break some bones and rupture some organs.”
It is often assumed that the great contrarian’s break with the liberal left came over Iraq in 2003. His self-professed pro-life position, however, had provoked howls of anguish in progressive circles 14 years earlier. It has long been taken as axiomatic that in order to be left-wing you must be pro-choice. Yet Hitchens’s reasoning was not just solid but solidly left-wing. It was a pity, he noted, that the “majority of feminists and their allies have stuck to the dead ground of ‘Me Decade’ possessive individualism, an ideology that has more in common than it admits with the prehistoric right, which it claims to oppose but has in fact encouraged”.
(Excerpt) Read more at newstatesman.com ...
Actually, being pro-life makes you a zealous extremist. A religious nutcase. A dangerous fascist. A Nazi. You are no longer fit for decent human society. Sorry — you’re out of the club. My neighbors will no longer talk to trash such as yourself.
“It was a pity, he noted, that the “majority of feminists and their allies have stuck to the dead ground of ‘Me Decade’ possessive individualism, an ideology that has more in common than it admits with the prehistoric right, which it claims to oppose but has in fact encouraged”.”
We conservatives are for military service, families, religious and other civic institutions. We are tough on crime and want to secure the national border.
What IS individualistic is the belief that most people should be able to rely on themselves instead of the government.
Mitt Romney is a pro-life liberal.
I hate a world in which people line up in rigid unipolar positions. One should be guided by what’s right, not by dogma or by what one is informed by the conventional wisdom.
That’s for the lazy and ignorant. Too many on the Left are like that and believe liberalism and abortion on demand are mutually equivalent. That’s only been true by the way, since the 1970s.
On the same token, too many on the Right believe that conservatism and 'pro life since conception' are mutually equivalent.
There are a few on the Left who are pro-life; Martin Sheen and Hitchens’ bete noir George Galloway come to mind.
Don’t forget Warren Beatty and Annette Benning
This year.
The loophole you can drive a space shuttle through.
I don’t tolerate anti-life views on the right. Extremism in defense of innocent life is no vice. Tolerance in the face of killing innocent life is no virtue.
Believing in exceptional cases for abortion isn’t the same as endorsing abortion on demand.
Abortion is not going to be outlawed in this century. But we can make it difficult to get one.
"Exceptional"?
Please see post #10.
If true, his position of Rape, Incest and Life of the Mother sets him apart from the “Abortion on Demand” crowd but is considered Anti Abortion by Liberals and Pro Life by Moderates. Judging by many Posts I have seen on FR, not all Conservatives have an issue with those three exceptions.
I guess that's an improvement over flip-flopping on the issue.
Legal analysts say candidate Romney is different from Gov. Romney.
Liberty Counsel Action Vice President Matt Barber said Romney’s appointments were constitutional “living document” poster children.
“Many of Romney’s appointments were not only liberal, not only Democrats, but were radical counter-constitutionalists. How on earth can we expect that, as president, he would be any different?” Barber asked rhetorically.
“Actions speak louder than words, and Mitt Romney’s actions as governor scream from the rooftops that he cannot be trusted with this most important of presidential responsibilities.”
Barber cites two specific examples of Romney’s radical appointments.
“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney not only failed in this regard, he appointed a number of very liberal, if not radical, ‘living, breathing’-minded judges to the bench,” Barber said.
“Two that come to mind were extreme homosexualists Marianne C. Hinkle and Stephen Abany,” he said. “They both had a long history of pro-gay activism, yet Romney didn’t hesitate to put them on the bench.”
“These are people who outrageously believe the postmodern notion that newfangled ‘gay rights’ trump our constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights,” he said.
Baldwin agreed, citing Romney’s statements about the two requirements he actually used when selecting judges.
“Romney did focus on two criteria: their legal experience and whether they would be tough on crime. In other words, the nominee could be a gay activist or a pro-big government, pro-quota, pro-gun control Democrat Party hack who detests every judicial principle treasured by our founding fathers,” Baldwin said. “But if he happens to be tough on crime and have prosecutorial experience, he gets past the Romney filter. Many of Romney’s nominees fit that description.”
Baldwin added that Romney did have some ideological criteria for many of his nominees:
“It was criteria commonly used by the left. For starters, his nominees were mostly pro-abortion. Indeed, while campaigning for governor in 2002, Romney told the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) that his judicial nominees would more likely protect abortion rights than would those of a Democrat Governor, according to notes from a person attending this meeting.”
Another Romney criteria, Baldwin explained, was “diversity.”
“The other criteria consistently emphasized by Gov. Romney in deciding judicial selections was ‘diversity.’ This is the silly notion that judgeships should reflect the population in terms of race and gender and even sexual orientation, regardless of a person’s judicial philosophy,” he said. “Clearly, the use of diversity quotas demonstrates Romney’s lack of a coherent conservative worldview.”
Barber agreed with Baldwin’s assessment, adding that Romney’s record while governor is reason for concern, because the next president may radically reshape the federal bench.
In my next sentence I stated “if true”.
Of course, if this is a deal breaker for you just go ahead and Vote for the other guy, Mr. Infanticide.
This guy?
I won't be voting for Mittens, but I admit even somebody who pretends to be pro-life for political expediency is preferable to a proud, flat-out murderer like the African communist. I sure hope Ubama loses.
I’m not on the thread so I don’t know why I was pinged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.