There is a difference between saying there is a constitutional right to do X, and saying that X is morally acceptable to God.
It is not morally acceptable to God to blaspheme Him, but you have a constitutional right to do so. Mitt wrongly considered abortion to be an immoral option that people had a right to choose under the constitution and has come to see his error and change.
Strange how Christians can sometimes be the least forgiving people around.
“Mitt wrongly considered abortion to be an immoral option that people had a right to choose under the constitution and has come to see his error and change.”
Great! I’d be happy to embrace Mr. Romney’s conversion!
If he didn’t keep implying that Mr. Reagan was “pro-choice” or that “personally pro-life but politically pro-abort” is a valid position.
If he’d stop with all the garbage, all the excuse-making, all the blame-shifting, all the effort to make himself look better than he was, his alleged “conversion” would be more credible to me, more believable.
But at this point, all the nonsense about he’s no different than Ronald Reagan, or that he was really, really pro-life all along, except that he publicly embraced Roe v. Wade with gusto, just makes me think he’s a liar and a fraud.
As well, I just don’t accept the “personally pro-life, but...” line of argument.
I’m Catholic. I’ve been listening to pro-abort Catholic politicians make this distinction for over two decades, now. I consider them to be frauds, hypocrites, liars, thugs and murderers. I see no reason to think better of non-Catholics who hold the same garbage.
I see it for what it is: a dodge. A cowardly out. A way to remain “politically viable” while lying to oneself and to everyone else who will listen and be duped. A way to excuse oneself to not lift a finger to stop the mass murder. I haven’t accepted it in Catholic pro-abort politicians, why should I start crediting it with Mormon pro-abort politicians?
sitetest