Posted on 01/12/2011 11:32:22 AM PST by Colofornian
Buzz about the 2012 presidential election is already in full swing. But with no real Republican front-runner, really, anyone is game. We’ve been hearing Mitt Romney’s name tossed around as a potential for a while now, but two weeks ago we started hearing another familiar name: Jon Huntsman.
While Huntsman doesn’t have the same national profile as Romney, he has gained status as the ambassador to China and might become more of a threat in the upcoming year. Can you imagine—TWO Mormons (gasp) both running for president?
Now, I understand my next thought doesn’t apply to every Mormon, BUT, I know of a lot of members who vote for politicians based on the fact that they, too, are LDS. And honestly, I know that I’ve been unjustifiably biased toward LDS politicians for the sole reason that we share a religion.
But what if Romney and Huntsman go head to head in 2012? Who will the Mormons vote for?! If their only choice was Romney, I bet a fair number of Mormons wouldn’t really give the other candidates a second thought. But throw Huntsman into the picture and we might actually have to do more research on each candidate’s stances. If they both end up running, it will be interesting to see how members react to the situation over the next two years. Do I sense a hint of BYU vs. Utah-style rivalry in the air?
"Do you support a life exception?"
Yes, but only if it can be demonstrated that such an "exception" clearly threatens the physical health of the woman, AND the baby has ZERO chance of surviving if nothing is done. (an ectopic pregnancy comes to mind as an example of this situation)
I'm sorry, but I do not equate an immediate threat to the physical health of a woman to any ongoing mental "anguish" she may suffer, a term that everyone must admit is subjective and therefore open to "interpretation", i.e., abuse.
I will not say, ever, that a woman's mental state is somehow equal to the life of a defenseless baby.
I think you hit the nail on the head in your first reply to me: "That's not how I frame the issue." Indeed, it's quite clear, we approach the issue from a fundamentally different angle. And as I implied in my last post to you, I used to struggle with the issue as you are now, attempting in vain (at least in my mind) to somehow balance everyone's needs in the situation of rape, so that everyone can "feel good in the end". (everyone except the dead baby of course, a point I shoved out of my mind because I didn't want to address that "nasty little detail", but it was easy to do that since no one ever hears from an aborted baby himself how much he didn't like being aborted)
The way I see it, rape is an evil act, and evil acts rarely have a flowery, feel good movie ending. Someone is going to get "hurt" when violence occurs. The question here is, who's "hurt" is greater? Who is "hurt more" by abortion, a baby or the raped woman? That's the issue here. That's just a fact. In this instance, I've simply decided to try to preserve as much life as possible, and if someone in the end still struggles with "mental anguish" over it, they can go see a psychiatrist about it.
At least everyone will still be alive in my approach.
BTW, I 100% misstated this...It was actually the reverse:
...the greater exposure to porn, the LESS jail time such a person recommended for a rapist!!!
Well, I'm not against re-stating something after negative feedback. Thank you for your feedback. So allow me to re-state it with proper clarification geared toward "...what people think of when they think of child porn."
I'll be darned if someone like you has any business telling me what to do. You don't. [Post #170]
OK. (don't watch 17 yo engaged in porn acts...oops...sorry...can't help myself...but that's OK. I know. The govt has already told you that's a "no-no"...so you don't...and you won't...but what if the govt legalizes 17 yo for that "purpose"? ...especially given your seeming propensity for allowing the govt to define many -- certainly not all -- of your moral boundaries?)
[Thank you for allowing me to "clarify" this for you]
If you read the Rules for MORMON Missionaries, you'll find Investigators mentioned.
They've been posted a LOT since 2008.
Then why on Earth are you in a MORMON themed thread?
Just for the politics?
What do you believe in?
Sorry kid; but your dad's a rapist (So says yer Momma!) so YOU'll have to die.
Put me in the camp of those who think there should be a CONVICTED RAPIST behind bars before EVER considering KILLing the Human fetus.
That human spirit should have gotten Bald Eagle parents. That way it would have the protection of the Federal Government behind it.
Anguish!
Oh my!
Just put her in a medically induced COMA for 9 months: she won't remember a thing.
It's MORMONism; but that distinction, since you do NOT believe the NT, is probably lost on you.
The vicitim?
There is one more VICTIM involved.
Okay....fair enough.
So what's your take on J. Smith?
Their 'holy books' say a LOT of stuff that they DO NOT DO.
Hateful Bigot!
You KNOW that was written WAY after Noah walked the Earth!
It don’t COUNT!
—MormonDude(Got yer back; M!)
I gots links,
You gots links;
All GOD’s chillen gots links.
When I get to Heaven,
I won’t need my links;
‘cause they done got me into GOD’s Heaven!
Amen.
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.