Ethical biomedical research like the murder and mutilation of a pre-born person. Takes one sick person to rationalize that. U.S. Army Retired |
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.
| Ethical biomedical research like the murder and mutilation of a pre-born person. Takes one sick person to rationalize that. U.S. Army Retired |
| Tell that to the pre-borns who he supports the murder and mutilation of. U.S. Army Retired |
Oh, I don’t think his stand now is so terribly horrible as you imply. It certainly is light years better than his previous stand. And he doesn’t think public money should be spent on destructive embryo research.
He doesn’t think life should be created for the purpose of destruction.
The only thing he has a sticking point on is that he thinks parents of unused in vitro fertilized embryos should be allowed to donate them for privately funded research. That is actually what is legal now, and so all he is saying is that he wouldn’t lead a crusade to change the status quo and make it against the law.
And now tell us what you quoted has to do with what Mitt Romney actually said. As it is, you’re just beating around the bush.
“So you read his article in one minute”
Evelyn Wood
| Oh thats just so nice isn't it. Not so bad, and certainly better than his previous position. Private murder is ok just as long as public funds are not used in butchering the little people. Let's not insist that we take a moral stand in support of life. A wink and a nod will do. U.S. Army Retired |
“When Romney wavered about federal funding for stem cell research - Hunter was certain about his opinion and wanted to share it with Mrs. Reagan.”
***After the 1st debate: http://www.americandaily.com/article/18685
FIRST DEBATE: http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=5562636
There seems to be controversy among conservatives as to whether former Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) is conservative enough on abortion for them to support his potential candidacy for president. The controversy isn’t over whether some agreed-upon position is conservative enough, however. There doesn’t seem to be much agreement on what the former senator’s views even are. DaveG at Race 4 2008 has an excellent presentation of what we can know from what the senator has said.
It turns out that he is pro-choice but moderately so. DaveG misdescribes the position as moderately pro-life, but that’s inaccurate. The pro-life position is that abortion is generally wrong, with perhaps some very rare exceptions like rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother (on which I have some pointed thoughts here). The pro-choice view, on the other hand, considers abortion to be ok in a significant number of circumstances, even if it’s thoroughly immoral in others. Thompson’s view is like the view of former Governor Bill Weld of Massachusetts and former Senator George Allen of Virginia. He thinks first-trimester abortions are perfectly fine, and anything after that is wrong. He thus takes the view Roe v. Wade once took, one that the Supreme Court significantly expanded in later cases. I find it extremely hard to count that view as pro-life in the sense that the vast majority of pro-lifers consider themselves pro-life.
——snip——
http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2007/03/fred_thompson_o.html
It’s still a whole lot better than Giuliani’s stand.
Ah, a true Mittster. You want to have it both ways. Mitt’s pro-life except when the parents are OK with murder. Stereotypically Romney.
And also find the time to post a reply.
| Its better than Adolph Hitler's stand too...but well short of ethical. U.S. Army Retired |
Thelion has to do triple duty shilling for Mitt now that several of his fellow campaign workers have been "outed and Ousted" ;) He doesn't HAVE to post anything that is relevant, as long as it is laudatory to the Perfumed Prince. His fellow worshippers will be along shortly to high-five him and some even do it in understandable English.
STEP #2
If you can’t say anything GOOD about your choice of candidate, say something BAD about other peoples choice.
ONWARD TO STEP #3.....
Just trying to make sure we judge these candidates on the real facts.
How long does it take to type a 11 word sentence??
I timed it...
7 seconds.
ROTFL! According to whom?
| You say what I am so sure of. Many Romney posters on here are organized by the campaign to intimidate conservatives into not drawing attention to Mitt-flops flagrantly liberal record. Their cute little slogan responses and attempts to discredit are VERY transparent. U.S. Army Retired |
Add in, getting to the link time....go to the link right now and respond to me....be honest.
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.