Skip to comments.My response to the RINO Blogger telling FR to Knock Off the RINO Bashing and to all RINO Pushers
Posted on 12/02/2009 11:15:56 AM PST by Jim Robinson
RomneyCare is big government forcing its will on a formerly free people. It's anti-American, anti-free-markets, anti-Liberty and unconstitutional. Listen to the Reagan tape. RomneyCare is the socialism he's talking about. RomneyCare = ObamaCare. No difference.
Government is not the solution, it IS the problem!!
Free Republic will not support gun grabbing, abortion pushing, gay rights pushing, big government socialist RINOS!!
In fact we will actively campaign AGAINST them!!
Free Republic is a pro-Life & Liberty small government conservative site for pro-Life & Liberty small government conservatives!!
Take a freaking hike if you don't like it.
RINOS be damned!!
Hope this helps.
I get to so called “bash” the pro-abortion crowd...
Did you ever notice how “pro-choicers” always try to convince people they are not pro-abortion ???
If you are OK with just ONE abortion, you are NOT pro-life...
Theres only pro-life and pro-abortion, pro-death, anti-life
When does the baby get her turn to choose ???
Its her body...
But look on FR and see how many people have been hoodwinked into believing Mormons are better. It’s disturbing, really. And RINO Mitt and his family are the epitome of this squeaky clean image. The Osmonds were too, then you read the story of Marie and see that all isn’t necessarily like it appears to outsiders.
- - - - - - - -
I agree, the PR does do wonders. I scares me too, how many (even here on FR) think we should imitate the Mormons more. No Thanks, I will imitate my Lord instead.
And on the Marie Osmond thing, I knew about her when I was LDS, I was living in a “family ward” in North Orem and she was in our ward. She didn’t attend but we had a few run ins.
That’s not the Mormon position, except in the case of rape, in which a woman should counsel with her bishop and pray about it.
On my, than some how the Heritage Foundation gave out wrong informatiion!
April 20, 2006
Understanding Key Parts of the Massachusetts Health Plan
by Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., and Nina Owcharenko
Any comprehensive plan to reform health care will contain complex, and likely contentious, provisions. The recently enacted Massachusetts plan, based on a proposal by Governor Mitt Romney, is no exception. It contains complex provisions that have raised questions and concerns. But much of this controversy stems from confusion about the provisions. Therefore, understanding these provisions, especially in the context of the larger reform, is important.
Thats what colofornian said...
Mormon position on abortion is its OK for rape, incest or the “health” of the “mother”
Didya ever consider THE HEALTH OF THE BABY ?????????
Classic...the new Inman Motto!!
I see another purge coming on, and welcome it!
....now dont go gettin your antis in a wad.
Classic...the new Inman Motto!!
- - - - - - -
I still say we need T-shirts.
I agree with most of your statement of general principles. Especially what you said about that abomination, the commerce clause.
Mandates are anti-liberty. However, as with most things, it is not always that simple.
Your position on abortion — and mine — for example, is to limit the “liberty” of the woman seeking the abortion, and to have the government insert itself into the matter. On abortion, the liberals suddenly become libertarian. I would also limit the “liberty” of homosexuals to engage in homosexual behavior, if I could be the czar. If it was good enough for Byron White, it’s good enough for me.
Would you do away with laws requiring people to buy car insurance? That’s a mandate, too, and somewhat analogous to the mandate to purchase health insurance.
You are also right that government is the source of the problem. The government won’t allow hospitals to turn away non-paying patients. Do you think you could get even a majority of conservatives to agree that hospitals should be able to turn away people? I really don’t.
I actually think some kind of minimal “charity” care, maybe funded by states, might be a good idea. It would take care of emergencies, but would not be good enough that people would want to rely on it. If they wanted all the good care available, they would have to find some way to insure themselves.
I don’t think one man should have a “right” to the labor of another — even doctors.
But, I still think the attempt by Romney and Heritage to find a way to end the “free riding” does not make them “socialists.”
Thanks for the discussion. On to other things now.
The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer. (First Presidency (Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, Marion G. Romney), Priesthood Bulletin, Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Feb. 1973, p. 1-2.)
Except where the wicked crime of incest or rape was involved, or where competent medical authorities certify that the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or that a severely defective fetus cannot survive birth, abortion is clearly a thou shalt not. Even in these very exceptional cases, much sober prayer is required to make the right choice. (Packer, Boyd K., Conference Report, Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, October 1990, p. 108.)
Exactly... Thank you JR
Who gave Romney the right to take away voters' rights to vote.
Romney and his Legion of RomneyBOTs are evil incarnate Marxists.
From the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions, approved in September, 1998, states that abortion may be performed in the following circumstances: pregnancy resulting from rape or incest; a competent physician says the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy; or a competent physician says that the “fetus” has severe defects that will not allow the “baby” to survive beyond birth. In any case, the persons responsible must first consult with their church leader and receive Gods approval in prayer (156).
So their official position is in the cases of
..rape or incest
...a competent physician says the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy
....or a competent physician says that the “fetus” has severe defects that will not allow the “baby” to survive beyond birth.
More than just rape, LL.
and FYI, my mother was counseled to terminate the pregnancy and told I would have such severe defects that I wouldn’t be “viable”, guess what a “competent physician” (actually several) were WRONG.
My husband’s best friend’s mother was told, again by “competent physician” that she should terminate because she she might die if she carried to term. Guess what, they were wrong too!
Although many believe otherwise, doctors ARE NOT GODS.
It seems the mormons are going to counsel a woman its OK to murder her baby if she was raped, and then skip out of any responsibility for her decision...
“And what if she doesnt have that strength, for example, when the emotional trauma is so great that the woman cannot stand to see the pregnancy through? In those cases, she will not be subject to Church discipline. Why should she be? This is not a case of convenience or the attempt to cover up their sin, such as an unwed pregnancy. She simply lacks the emotional or spiritual strength of some other people who have had the strength to overcome by faith such things. And in the end, at the judgment day, it is not the Church or any official within who will have to answer for the choices she made in her life. She will stand alone facing her God (as will anyone supporting the decision to have an abortion). (Stapley, Delbert L., Conference Report, Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, October 1961, p. 23.)
Thanks for the discussion. On to other things now.
- - - - - - -
Translation: “I am on to other things because I know I am not going to win the argument. Buh-bye”
It is no different than walking down the street and seeing someone being murdered or raped or robbed or beaten and turning a blind eye -- it is morally indefensible.
Favorite tag in a list of great tags: romneyisapussy
The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion EXCEPT in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel,...
(Poor lds "prophet" Spencer W. Kimball...who hardly could have known in 1973 that the abortion industry would be turned over -- as in 90% turned over -- to abortion clinics and full-time dismemberment staffs. Of course, maybe if he was really a "prophet" -- he'd have known that in '73)
Other Lds endorsements for "fair game" in the womb: ...the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered...
This was near the same language as the rogue judges used on the Supreme Court bench in '73 -- where "health" of the mother became the truck that the abortionists drove their abortion-on-demand through. "Health" of the mother came to mean almost anything--even economic health!
Even more "exceptional" targeting of the pre-born? ...or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother.
(How "patriarch" of these men to somehow think that rape and "serious emotional trauma" might actually be two separate issues -- see that little word "and" linking but still disconnecting the two)
Drum-roll, please -- the huge Mormon caviat which also came to inform Mitt Romney's opinions on abortion, which were many & varied: Even then it should be done...after receiving divine confirmation through prayer. [First Presidency (Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, Marion G. Romney), Priesthood Bulletin, Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Feb. 1973, p. 1-2.]
So, the Mormons converted prayer into a vehicle for announcing abortion go-aheads??? (What utter shame) Look, TN, at that statement again you cited by Lds general authority Boyd Packer: "Even in these very exceptional cases, much sober prayer is required to make the right choice. (Packer, Boyd K., Conference Report, Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, October 1990, p. 108.)
So, even after the Mormon leaders had 17 years to ponder abortion-on-demand in this country, its leaders will still couching abortion in "pro-choice" language re: the need "to make the right choice" after "much sober prayer" -- as if drunken prayer could result in the wrong "choice."
The entire Mormon church should be utterly ashamed of itself for bringing God into the abortion industry. (And if grassroots Lds haven't provided negative feedback on this to their leaders, they're part of the problem)
The choice should be clear to any REAL conservative:
Return to the standards of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and Jesse Helms (just to name three great conservatives) and the Republican Party will start winning elections.
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.