Posted on 09/27/2006 11:07:20 AM PDT by SDGOP
Dear conservative blonde,
"You have no evidence that his switch to pro-life is just a 'political ploy.'"
Certainly I do.
1. The timing of Mr. Romney's conversion suggests cynicism. He was clearly a pro-abort as long as he was running for office in pro-abort Massachusetts. Now that he has decided not to run again for office in pro-abort Massachusetts, he has labeled himself "pro-life," as he seeks the nomination to the presidency of the pro-life Republican Party.
2. He hasn't quite yet chosen his cover story. Some days I hear that he's "converted" to a pro-life position. Other days, he seems to deny that he was ever "pro-choice" (real pro-lifers, by the way, don't use that deceptive phrase, but rather call it like it is - he was a pro-abort). Which raises the question, if he was never "pro-choice," why did he need to "convert"?
I actually saw him on the television talking about his "conversion" to the pro-life cause. It was pathetic and unconvincing to me, but at least it was a clear story line.
Now he's saying in his interview with Red State, "I never called myself pro-choice." Yikes, man! If you're going to make it up out of whole cloth, at least get your story straight!
"No one knows the heart of man but God."
I never said differently. Yet, each of us is required every day to try to discern who is telling us the truth and who is not. I can't say what is in Mr. Romney's heart, but I can say reasonably that he doesn't appear to be telling the truth.
If he is, he needs to do a far better job of it.
However, at this point, having dug a very deep hole for himself, my first piece of advice to him would be to stop digging.
sitetest
And it was in 1967 and was not as bad as other laws (such as New York's 1970 law).
Dear Revenge of Sith,
It is very tiresome to hear this false comparison. It just isn't based in fact. For decades, the liberal scum have made this slur and smear against Mr. Reagan, to diminish he genuine pro-life support. It's disheartening to see folks on FR resort to the same tactics.
sitetest
Excellent question.
Dear Radix,
Mr. Romney, is that you??
"I don't believe it should be legal..."
"I also don't believe that abortion should be done illegally. If it is going to be done, then it should be done safely."
Yikes!
Unfortunately, there is no middle position. Abortion must either generally be legal or generally be illegal. If you ultimately accept its legality, then you are pro-abortion.
What is Orwellian is trying to have it both ways.
"By the way, you are not going to stop abortions by making them illegal."
Before Roe, there were around 100,000 abortions performed per year in the United States. After Roe, the number of abortions in the United States increased to about 1.5 million annually. The number of abortions has declined modestly in the last couple of decades to around 1.2 million per year.
It seems that there were many fewer abortions in the United States when it was generally illegal.
So much for your assertion that making abortion illegal will not stop abortions.
"So then if abortionists practice their craft then have them do it in a safe way, and then lock them up after for it. Lock them up and throw away the key. Let them stand for a principle rather than demanding that non abortionists and pro lifers be required to express convoluted logic and contortion of the language, as you and so many regularly do here and elsewhere."
LOL. Talk about convoluted logic and contortion of the language.
If one says that an abortionist shall be liable to imprisonment for performing an abortion, one has made abortion illegal.
"Go after the abortionists. Get the laws passed, and vote in the persons who are wanting to make it so unrewarding that they'll be compelled to practice medicine with a more serious concentration on ethical matters."
Wow! What a great idea! Who would have ever thought of that? Pass laws to make it illegal for folks to commit abortion!!
ROTFLMAO!!
Radix, pro-lifers would be delighted to pass such laws. Such laws once existed in nearly every state. They were overturned by Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
These two cases forbid states and the federal government from passing laws that would forbid abortion, whether by threatening doctors or women with prosecution. Until Roe is overturned, we cannot have our elected representatives pass laws to incarcerate abortionists.
In that the only realistic way of undoing Roe is to have a future Supreme Court overturn its findings, we pro-lifers, for 30+ years, have fought to elect presidents who would appoint Supreme Court Justices who would do just that.
It's been a battle with mixed results.
However, at this time, there are, perhaps, four votes on the Court to overturn Roe. Another real conservative president would have the opportunity to put at least one or two, and perhaps three or four Justices on the Court who would understand that the "right" to abortion is nowhere found in the Constitution, nor its emanations or penumbrae.
As to the latter part of your last paragraph that I cite, actually, very few medical doctors are willing to perform abortions, except in dire emergency circumstances. Out of hundreds of thousands of doctors, nearly all abortions in the United States are performed by perhaps fewer than a thousand doctors or so.
Abortion is considered by most reputable doctors to be a rather dirty way to earn a living. However, it earns a very, very good living for the disreputable few who choose to butcher babies on a daily basis.
As for Mr. Romney, I have no idea what he'd do as president. He's stated in the past that for over 30 years, he was a principled proponent of the legally-guaranteed right of women to choose to procure the murder of their babies. Now, he's saying different.
I doubt he'd give a whit as to whether or not his Supreme Court nominations would be right on life.
"Calling people names and distorting their principles because their values, or way of looking at an issue is not in harmony with one's own is certainly not a productive endeavor."
Trying to land on both sides of an issue with no middle position may cause folks to call you on your refusal to expound a coherent, consistent position.
"Mitt Romney is clearly not pro abortion."
That's a nice assertion. Where's the evidence? How does that evidence stack up against years of pro-abortion rhetoric on Mr. Romney's part?
"Mitt Romney is also clearly the most principled politician that I have ever been aware of in my lifetime."
That may be how you see him, but it isn't how I see him. He looks like an unprincipled do-anything-say-anything-to-get-elected opportunist.
That he is now running away from his pro-abort past is stark evidence of his opportunism. "Conversion" on this issue is hard to accept. But, hey, at least he should keep his story straight, and not try to create a story that is in diametric opposition to his own personal history.
In the past, Mr. Romney has spoken movingly and passionately about why he believes, AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE why abortion should be legal. Okay. I disagree, but it's a clear position that he took.
For him now to say, "I've never called myself pro-choice," is an insult to anyone who can read and make sense of the English language.
"He is not perfect, but he is nothing like most of the scum who are involved in the legislative process here in this state, and also compared to a very great many in Washington."
Maybe he looks good in Massachusetts. That's kinda sad for the folks who live there. However, elsewhere, there are actually politicians who at least can maintain the same story line over time.
"Mitt Romney actually has some class."
To me, it appears mostly lower.
"I am not some big time Romney supporter, but the crap that is being thrown out here regarding the man is just so absurd, that I can't not say something."
Mostly, we're quoting Mr. Romney's own words, and showing that he has been inconsistent on this issue. As well, others have exposed other parts of his actual record (signing a permanent assault weapons ban, as an example) that give rise to opposition from many conservatives.
Frankly, I was sorta hoping Mr. Romney might be a good conservative candidate when I first started reading about him. However, his actual stated positions on issues lead me to believe that for me, he is unacceptable as a candidate for the presidency.
If folks are all right with a pro-abortion, anti-gun liberal, vote for him!
I don't think I will.
sitetest
Dear Gelato,
If I were an advisor to Mr. Romney, I'd tell him to keep his mouth shut about abortion until he made up his mind which story he was going to push.
Going with two contradictory story lines ("I converted to pro-life," "I wasn't pro-choice [pro-abortion].") doesn't inspire confidence in his sincerity or truthfulness.
Some folks might figure out he's trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth. Some of those folks might not want to vote for him because of that.
But, hey, that's just me, I guess.
sitetest
No kidding. The problem must be that he can't dodge the question when asked, and he continues to be asked again, and again, and again. Romney gives inconsistent answers because he's used to getting away with telling listeners what he thinks they want to hear.
It'll be interesting to see what new line his spinners think of next.
Ok. You win. But I'm not going to be opposed to Romney because he is a Mormon, but because of his political views. Judging from his political views I would have to say that he probably puts his religious convictions on a much lower scale than his political ambitions.
That being said, if he gets the party nod, he will most likely get my vote. As bad as Romney is, he is a thousand times better than any leading democrat.
Dear P-Marlowe,
"But I'm not going to be opposed to Romney because he is a Mormon, but because of his political views."
Of the four individuals to whom you posted this, which of us has opposed Mr. Romney because of his religious affiliation? I've explicitly stated that I wouldn't oppose someone because he's a Mormon, and would, in fact, vote for Orrin Hatch if he were the Republican nominee (although while holding my nose - he's become a creature of Washington, DC in my own view).
sitetest
100% agreed.
The non-issue "Mormon issue" is distracting some folks from scrutinizing the man's politics. That's a shame.
Here's hoping the novelty will wear off eventually.
Take care.
Apparently i'm a DU troll if you listen to what some of the posters said.
I never said i had an issue with his religion either, i have a problem with his politics.
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.