Posted on 12/27/2007 3:28:02 PM PST by big'ol_freeper
In an interview with CBS News' Katie Couric last week, GOP Presidential contender Mitt Romney was asked "What's the biggest mistake you've ever made?" Interestingly, he responded that his practice of the popular stand on abortion - 'personally opposed, but . . .' was his biggest mistake. However, in the same interview he noted he still supports destructive research on embryonic stage humans.
"I think from the political perspective, the biggest mistake I made was believing that my personal disagreement with abortion and my view that abortion was wrong, that somehow I could accommodate my personal view that abortion was wrong with a public view that other people should be able to make up their own mind, and the government wouldn't play a role," Romney replied.
After some time Couric pursued the matter further asking, "You said you have personal views toward abortion but felt that in the public arena, another position could exist. What is wrong with that? What's wrong with having a personal view and feeling that it's the right of individuals to make these difficult choices?"
Romney replied: "Well, what I recognized is that in a civilized society that there has to be a respect for the sanctity of life - that if you put that aside, if you say, "We're gonna start creating life and then destroying it," you're, in effect, playing God. And I think a civilized society has certain rules of conduct that it live by and one of those is to respect the sanctity of life. Another is respect in the sanctity of marriage. And...so when...I was faced with not a theoretical question of, "What do you think about abortion?" but, instead, the reality of being a governor who would sign a bill that would create life and destroy it-this was an embryonic cloning bill--I said, "I simply cannot become party to something where life would be created and then destroyed." And that made the decision for me that it was impossible to have a strong position personally opposing abortion and, at the same time, to say that we're going to have laws which permitted and permit the destruction of life throughout our society."
However in what would be seen by many as a contradiction, Romney told Couric he supported embryonic stem cell research.
Couric asked: "So what kind of embryos - embryos that are created for procreation and then would be discarded? Are those the ones that you feel are perfectly fine from which to cull cells for stem cell research?"
Romney replied: "Yes, those embryos that are referred to commonly as surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization. Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law."
Romney noted that he would not permit public monies to pay for such research. "I wouldn't finance that with government money because it represents a moral challenge for a lot of people and I think we're better investing in places where the prospects are much better," he said.
| Isn't this position one that most people here would agree with? Can't we give Mitt credit for being right about this? Sorta like Pontius Pilate washing his hands of responsibility for the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. If you want to give him credit for that kind of cowardly excuse then have at it.  U.S. Army Retired |
I’ve been keeping an eye on this thread for that very reason— how are the Mittsters going to explain this away? (getting popcorn)
Governor Romney Believes We Can Support Techniques That “Produce The Equivalent Of Embryonic Stem Cells But Without Cloning, Creating, Harming, Or Destroying Developing Human Lives
A Stem-Cell Solution
Real scientific opportunities.
By Mitt Romney 06/15/07
Some advocates told me that only the creation of human embryos for purposes of experimentation, otherwise known as cloning, could help them better understand and perhaps someday treat a series of dreaded diseases. But they ignored the importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life. Opposing advocates told me that the pluripotency of stem cells — their ability to become a very wide variety of different cell types — would not be of great therapeutic value, and that other sources of tissues and cells could serve the same purpose. But they ignored the unique role pluripotent cells could play in basic science.
Couldn’t the strongest part of each side’s argument — the utility of pluripotent cells on the one hand and the importance of protecting human life on the other — be brought together? I studied the issue for many months, and entered into conversation with experts from across the nation who were looking for consensus solutions, like Stanford’s Dr. William Hurlbut. In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise, and that the way through it was around it: by the use of scientific techniques that could produce the equivalent of embryonic stem cells but without cloning, creating, harming, or destroying developing human lives.
——snip——
more here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmY2OTUxMTgyZmM0ZDkwMGRmMzhkYjAxZmMyOWZlM2U=
So he supports the moral way AND the immoral way. Big whoop.
So you read his article in one minute....yeah right. You don’t care about facts.
| But, but, but...in the meantime if someone wants to allow the abuse and mutilation of a pre-born person Mitt-flop is all in with that. Have at it boys. Rip it apart. Extract its genes. Violate the sanctity and dignity of human life. Slap God in the face. U.S. Army Retired |
The same way they handle any other examples of Romney's liberalism. Demand proof and when it is given to them in reams,call you and your sources bigots and Mormon bashers.
Ah, I attack Slick Willard’s pro-death position, and you attack me.
That’s the Prime Directive in action.
That is not true and you know it.
Of course it’s true.
BINGO!!
From the National Review link
“Yes, those embryos that are referred to commonly as surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization. Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that’s acceptable. It should not be made against the law.”
From the TOP OF THE PAGE! Who do you think you’re kidding?
Where am I wrong?
1. Is an embryo a human life?
2. Did Mitt not say if someone wants to donate extra embryos from in vitro fertilization for embryonic stem cell research he supports that?
3. Does not embryonic stem cell research destroy the embryo?
If you answered yes to all the above, which are the correct answers, then Mitt-flop does exactly what I said.
| Refute that. U.S. Army Retired |
Riiigghhtt. If you'll excuse me, I'll go have my political discussions with people who aren't frothing at the mouth.
Have a nice day.
Pro life ping
| Ding, ding, ding!! We have a winner. First personal attack on the thread. U.S. Army Retired |
Support for ethical biomedical research should be part of our collective identity as a noble society. Instead of turning the quest for cures into a partisan battle, Congress should embrace the exciting emerging lines of research that could meet the goals of all sides in the stem-cell debate. A bill to support just such a positive approach to stem cell research passed the Senate in April by a whopping margin of 70 to 28. But the House Democratic leadership, choosing politics over the prospect of consensus on science, appears to be unwilling even to allow a vote on that hopeful legislation.
It is time to move beyond typical Washington politics, and offer support for stem-cell research techniques that bring science and ethics together to promote life, protect life, and save lives.
From the article.
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.