Is Mitt Romney Actually Electable? (Nope)

Forbes via Instapundit ^ | January 30, 2012 | Richard Miniter

[sayuncledave]

Hi giotto,
this is where we will differ. I do sympathize, and understand why you feel as you do. And with many possible candidates, I might reflect on doing the same thing. But I’m not being coy, awaiting Willard’s attempts to win my vote, or waiting until sheer numbers force other possible candidates to recant and leave the field. If he becomes the nominee, he will not get my vote.

In the 2008 campaign, I spent far more time than was prudent trying to write to various parties, both to learn more of what they purported to stand for, and to ask questions. McCain, in particular, was a sore point. I strenuously disagreed with a number of his choices. Yet I voted for him. Why? Sarah Palin. The combination of one tired, sad loaf of candidate and one energetic and decently honest person made both my wonderful wife and I hold our proverbial noses and vote for Senator Sad Sack. Even with the “I’ll stop campaigning for TARP” garbage. Never again. The RNC will nominate a decent, even if imperfect candidate, to gain my vote. Willard is not, nor can he ever be, that candidate. If he is nominated, I will not, and indeed, as a Catholic, CANNOT vote for him. I cannot vote for those who support abortion, or same sex union, so on. Not a chance.

As I said, I understand. And I’d not hold it against you, should you vote for him out of unity and getting weaselbreath out of the white house. But I cannot join you in it. I hope that you understand.

[giotto]

I’m having a hard time ferreting out what Romney’s stand on abortion is. He seems to be personally against abortion, but he also respects the individual’s right to choose. In other words, his position reflects the entire nature of the abortion debate. I know that Catholics believe life begins at conception, and therefore abortion at any stage is murder. I happen to believe that as well, having been raised Catholic. But we have to distinguish belief from provable fact. However eloquently one may argue one way or another, there is no way to prove at what point the soul enters the body. And until such proof exists, do we really have a right to impose our beliefs on those whose beliefs are somewhat different? This debate has raged for millenia. The fact that we haven’t resolved this issue should tell us something: It can’t be resolved—at least not with our current level of knowledge. The best we can hope for is to push for more education, more awareness and more opportunities to foster respect for life.

[The Citizen Soldier]

However eloquently one may argue one way or another, there is no way to prove at what point the soul enters the body. And until such proof exists, do we really have a right to impose our beliefs on those whose beliefs are somewhat different?

Seems like your argument is best resolved by erring on the side of life ...not death.

Also, I disagree that this debate has raged for millenia. It is actually a very recent debate, probably less than 100 years old. Much of it had it's beginnings with Margaret Sanger (1879-1966).