Posted on 09/27/2006 11:07:20 AM PDT by SDGOP
In his latest interview with RedState, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney responds to a question about his abortion position by saying that he's never adopted the label "pro-choice."
That's all well and good. Mitt Romney wants to be called pro-life. I'd like to be the King of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat.
But let's not kid ourselves: there is no substantive difference between the position labeled "pro-choice," declaring your support for "the right to choose." And that is something that Mitt Romney has done repeatedly over the course of his political career. To say otherwise is to tell a lie.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
If I were you, though, I wouldn't count out Frist. He has the base, the bankroll, and the backing.
I'm afraid Frist doesn't have s snowball's chance. He made sure of that with his weakness in the Senate over the Judgeships.
Mitt's dad was once brainwashed easily, so Mitt could be too.
That was kind of fun.
Clearly you didn't read my above post, i know he was a democrat, but he became a republican LONG before he ran for office. He also never held any wacky views as a democrat, as he put it the democrat party left him. Reagan was a spokesman for GM and went around the country talking and in the process he advocated conservatism. A a lady in the audience stood up and said you sound a lot like a republican. Reagan then said well maybye i am, i should switch. She happened to be an election official and gave him the forms on the spot. Reagan then continued to preach conservatism for the rest of his life.
BIG difference between what reagan did and what romney did. Romney is changing as he seeks higher office, reagan changed long before he sought the governorship and he held the same views.
Chill out pal. This is not a paid post. If all the quotes from Romney are correct, this is a real problem that Romney needs to correct. He should say that he changed his mind and explain way. Conservative voters don't like deception. Just look how badly Kerry did in conservative states.
Do a little research OK?
You make yourself look silly.
Frist is going nowhere, i think i'd vote for rudy before i'd vote for frist.
might vote for a Mormon who hadn't done a mission, but I don't think I could ever vote for one who had.
***
Oh wow
I am thankful the Lord thought enough of me to have his sheep look for me!
Today if I had not found the truth I would most likely have died by now out of despair!
Each day I strive to do my best with the gifts the Lord gaven me!
Now in the subtle form of a question:
Mitt's the only major Republican candidate to only be married once, and he's a Mormon. Something odd about that :^)
Sorry, but Frist is the REASON we have the Alito and Roberts and a host of conservatives on District and Appeals courts.
It's a bum rap and easily disproven.
Excellent post PD.
Frist is a looser who has absolutely no shot of being the republican nominee.
There were of course, fifty other good reasons why Kerry lost big-time in conservative states, but his deceptive behavior throughout his life was one big reason why he was crushed in conservative regions.
I realize this is a questionable source (Wikipedia), but it does have some verifiable facts about Romney's positions and accomplishments:
1. The Massachusetts General Court is comprised, overwhelmingly, of Democrats. They have a super-majority, not just a mere majority. There aren't enough legislative Republicans in Massachusetts to field a softball team, let alone Republicans elected to statewide office. What you call "abdication" is merely political reality: Romney couldn't over-ride a legislative veto if he wanted to.2. How, exactly, does one "abdicate" to a tunnel?
3. The only person who has done anything about the g-damn tunnel collapse is Mitt Romney! Ever since he got elected, he's tried to oust Matt Amorello from the Turnpike, but he couldn't, because Amorello---a Republican, by the way---had the support of too many hacks in the legislature. If it wasn't for Romney, Amorello would still be in charge, the investigation into what happened would be stalled or forgotten about.
Clearly, where Massachusetts politics are concerned, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Frist is as exciting as watching paint dry.
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." -Mitt Romney in a 1994 Senatorial debate
"I respect and will fully protect a woman's right to choose. That choice is a deeply personal one, and the women of our state should make it based on their beliefs, not mine and not the government's." -Mitt Romney in a 2002 GOP acceptance speech
"I've never called myself pro-choice." -Mitt Romney in a 2006 Redstate interview
-----
Now, I think I know what might be going on in Mitt's mind. Consider what Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (2nd highest ruling body in the church) said in 1999
----
Therefore, those who consider freedom of choice as a goal can easily slip into the position of trying to justify any choice that is made. “Choice” can even become a slogan to justify one particular choice. For example, today one who says “I am pro-choice” is clearly understood as opposing any legal restrictions upon a woman’s choice to abort a fetus.
More than 30 years ago, as a young law professor, I published one of the earliest articles on the legal consequences of abortion. Since that time I have been a knowledgeable observer of the national debate and the unfortunate United States Supreme Court decisions on the so-called “right to abortion.” I have been fascinated with how cleverly those who sought and now defend legalized abortion on demand have moved the issue away from a debate on the moral, ethical, and medical pros and cons of legal restrictions on abortion and focused the debate on the slogan or issue of choice. The slogan or sound bite “pro-choice” has had an almost magical effect in justifying abortion and in neutralizing opposition to it.
Pro-choice slogans have been particularly seductive to Latter-day Saints because we know that moral agency, which can be described as the power of choice, is a fundamental necessity in the gospel plan. All Latter-day Saints are pro-choice according to that theological definition. But being pro-choice on the need for moral agency does not end the matter for us. Choice is a method, not the ultimate goal. We are accountable for our choices, and only righteous choices will move us toward our eternal goals.
In this effort, Latter-day Saints follow the teachings of the prophets. On this subject our prophetic guidance is clear. The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Our members are taught that, subject only to some very rare exceptions, they must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. That direction tells us what we need to do on the weightier matters of the law, the choices that will move us toward eternal life.
In today’s world we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice. We must stand up for the right choice. Those who persist in refusing to think beyond slogans and sound bites like pro-choice wander from the goals they pretend to espouse and wind up giving their support to results they might not support if those results were presented without disguise.
For example, consider the uses some have made of the possible exceptions to our firm teachings against abortion. Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions are when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when a competent physician has determined that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Because abortion is a most serious matter, we are counseled that it should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.
Some Latter-day Saints say they deplore abortion, but they give these exceptional circumstances as a basis for their pro-choice position that the law should allow abortion on demand in all circumstances. Such persons should face the reality that the circumstances described in these three exceptions are extremely rare. For example, conception by incest or rape—the circumstance most commonly cited by those who use exceptions to argue for abortion on demand—is involved in only a tiny minority of abortions. More than 95 percent of the millions of abortions performed each year extinguish the life of a fetus conceived by consensual relations. Thus the effect in over 95 percent of abortions is not to vindicate choice but to avoid its consequences. 1 Using arguments of “choice” to try to justify altering the consequences of choice is a classic case of omitting what the Savior called “the weightier matters of the law.”
A prominent basis for the secular or philosophical arguments for abortion on demand is the argument that a woman should have control over her own body. Not long ago I received a letter from a thoughtful Latter-day Saint outside the United States who analyzed that argument in secular terms. Since his analysis reaches the same conclusion I have urged on religious grounds, I quote it here for the benefit of those most subject to persuasion on this basis:
“Every woman has, within the limits of nature, the right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Every woman has, at the same time, the responsibility for the way she uses her body. If by her choice she behaves in such a way that a human fetus is conceived, she has not only the right to but also the responsibility for that fetus. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, she is not justified in ending it with the claim that it interferes with her right to choose. She herself chose what would happen to her body by risking pregnancy. She had her choice. If she has no better reason, her conscience should tell her that abortion would be a highly irresponsible choice.
“What constitutes a good reason? Since a human fetus has intrinsic and infinite human value, the only good reason for an abortion would be the violation or deprivation of or the threat to the woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus. These considerations by themselves may properly lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero.
“The woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else’s irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right. She also has the right to refuse an abortion. This would give her the right to the fetus and also the responsibility for it. She could later relinquish this right and this responsibility through the process of placing the baby for adoption after it is born. Whichever way is a responsible choice.”
The man who wrote those words also applied the same reasoning to the other exceptions allowed by our doctrine—life of the mother and a baby that will not survive birth.
I conclude this discussion of choice with two more short points.
If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God’s servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law due to this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?
Similarly, some reach the pro-choice position by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so that our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes.
-----
So, it might be that in supporting 'a woman's right to choose', he considers that right only allowing an abortion if the pregancy isn't the result of the woman's chosen actions. Even if that is so, it was less than honest to lead other to think he supported abortion on demand.
Might be a good idea to mail that link to Mitt.
Romney has been out in front against Gay marriage in an overwhelmingly liberal state. He actively opposed gay Marriage, writing an op ed in the WSJ and testifying before Congress against gay Marriage.
He is not "socially liberal"
"Our nation-wide policy of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people, nor enacted by our legislators--not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. [It was] an act of raw judicial power"...
"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born."
"We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life."
"Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."
- President Ronald Reagan : "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", 1983
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.