Scott Brown - Pro-Choice But 'Different' (Very much against partial-birth abortion)

Christian Post ^ | 02/01/2010 | Lawrence D. Jones

[Jim Robinson]

Great point!

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>Is Scott Brown a romneybot?

I vote, yes.

[P-Marlowe]

Scott Brown is a genuine conservative who believes government has no business messing around in other folk’s private lives.

Sorry my FRiend, but anyone who believes that Roe v. Wade was a legitimate Supreme Court decision and who does not believe it should be overturned is NOT a conservative. Period.

Roe v. Wade was the worst kind of liberal judicial activism and that decision was clearly the worst abuse of judicial power in the history of the Republic.

Since Scott Brown is not bothered by the decision in Roe v. Wade, and has no desire to bee it overturned, Scott Brown is not worthy of holding a seat in the United States Senate and is clearly not worthy of being called a conservative much less a "genuine conservative."

Maybe you missed the Memo, by FRiend, but Free Republic is a PRO LIFE website.

[wagglebee]

Of all the horrific Supreme Court decisions in American history (and there have been some horrible ones like Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Buck v. Bell), ONLY Roe v. Wade can be directly linked to the deaths of innocent American human beings. The death toll currently stands at over 52 MILLION and another innocent life is added EVERY 24 SECONDS, anyone who isn’t determined to end that deserves nothing but contempt.

[big'ol_freeper]

RE: Brown's opponent portrayed him as a pro-life conservative, the media portrayed him as a pro-life conservative, Brown's supporters portrayed him as a pro-life conservative and, despite this, Brown won by five point. That means that a genuine pro-life conservative could have won and if a pro-life conservative can win in Massachusetts that means they can win ANYWHERE.

Excellent analysis!!

The vast majority of Americans in every state are either pro-life or they don't really care one way or another. Therefore a pro-life candidate should be electable everywhere.

[cmj328]

There have been many canonized Catholic saints who served like Mother Theresa, and only a few who have served like Thomas More, Louis IX, Garcia Moreno, Elizabeth of Hungary, Baldwin IV, Edward the Confessor, etc.

But Mother Theresa would have voted, and that's what we have to concern ourselves with. There may be no saints on the ballot (at least not yet), or there may even be one but who is incapable of getting elected. We are given a vote and we have to exercise it prudently and justly in order to "make" ourselves saints.

[cmj328]

There's a distinction between being pro-life and being a Pharisee.

A politician's personal life is about the last thing you need to worry about.

[cmj328]

If Brown caucuses with the Dems and votes for abortion funding in ObamaCare, then the analogy would be apt.

I think that's about as likely as Coakley caucusing with Republicans and filibustering.

[cmj328]

I might add, if he’s actually posing pornographically in that shot, then you’re purveying it here.

[mlizzy]

But Mother Theresa would have voted, and that's what we have to concern ourselves with. There may be no saints on the ballot (at least not yet), or there may even be one but who is incapable of getting elected. We are given a vote and we have to exercise it prudently and justly in order to "make" ourselves saints.

[retching noises!] If you're implying Mother Teresa would have voted for Scott Brown (or *any* pro-abort!), think again.

[mlizzy]

I might add, if he’s actually posing pornographically in that shot, then you’re purveying it here.

Don't worry, he's covered. I wouldn't copy a photo where he was naked. He hasn't done that yet, I don't think.

[cmj328]

No, she would have voted AGAINST Coakley.

[cmj328]

Ever wonder why the pro-aborts are so keen on government funding? Their own studies say that it would lead to 300,000 more abortions per year. That’s $150 million more in abortion revenue—primarily from poor women (the ones Sanger wanted to sterilize).

Brown’s election has stalled government funding for now. I think Mo. Theresa would have voted for this, if it was explained to her. She didn’t sit on her ass until she came up with a perfect plan to save all the babies of Calcutta, she went out and saved them one by one. Some were lost, of course. Life is messy.

[Salvation]

Yes, Mother Teresa of Calcutta (spelling her name correctly here, I believe,) would have voted for Brown over Coakley. I would have too if I had been a voter in MA. That still does not vindicate Brown’s switching around his views/flip-flopping in Kerry and Romney style, to get elected.

[mlizzy]

No, she would have voted AGAINST Coakley.

She'd sooner die than vote for *anyone* pro-abortion. She would pray for Scott Brown, definitely, but she would shred him to ribbons with stark Truths about life, as she did with the Clintons at the Prayer Breakfast, as they sat back and applauded her words.

[cmj328]

I haven’t seen any actual flip-flops. He ran as pro-choice in 2004. He claimed to be pro-choice in the televised debate in January as well. Coakley tried to make abortion the issue in this campaign and it bit her hard.

We definitely need to be on the lookout for flip-flops though because he is going to be under intense pressure from Boston media and polling.

[cmj328]

Yes, and then she would mark an X next to his name, to save those she could.

[mlizzy]

Yes, and then she would mark an X next to his name, to save those she could.

Nope, no X. That's what separates saints from sinners. They don't play games with the devil. Read some of her books, then go back and read some more ... she was one of the most incredible women that ever walked the face of this earth ...

[cmj328]

Nope, no X. That's what separates saints from sinners

No, that's what separates ritual-purity-obsessed Pharisees from Christians. The MA Senate election was a hard choice--there are little babies really being killed today, tomorrow, the next day, next year, all the way through the end of Kennedy's term in 2013. Those babies can't wait for us to find the perfect candidate, they need us to give them the best chance they can get.

They don't play games with the devil.

One of the games the devil loves to play is called scrupulosity.

[mlizzy]

At least everyone knew where Coakley stood. You probably already know what Christ plans on doing with the lukewarm, right? Scott Brown is hardly the only politician that doesn't have compassion for children in the womb, and they all need our prayers. I look forward to the day when our Young Patriots regain their rights.