Who Is The Real Pro-choice?

[Winchester]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351451191' post='2499177']
Why did the National Right to Life Committee endorse Romney?
[/quote]
Why did the NRA endorse him? The idiot signed a permanent assault weapons ban, and is on record saying that would protect police.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351453326' post='2499191']
"If that were his position, he would never have received our endorsement, that’s for sure" -Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List

[url="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/romney-im-in-favor-of-legal-abortion-for-health-and-life-of-mother-rape-inc"]http://www.lifesiten...mother-rape-inc[/url]
[url="http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/31/romney-opposes-pro-abortion-health-of-the-mother-exception/"]http://www.lifenews....ther-exception/[/url]

That's what it all comes down to.
[/quote]
Yes, that is what it comes down to.

You seem to be judging his position based off a sentence he said once in an interview.
I judge his position based off his official position that has been repeated hundreds of times.

I think my judgement is more fair and rational. I think you have found a loophole so you can make him appear as pro-abortion as Obama. Again, not your intent, I know, but it is the end result in your campaign against him.

[4588686]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351454390' post='2499205']
Yes, that is what it comes down to.

You seem to be judging his position based off a sentence he said once in an interview.
[s]I judge his position based off his official position that has been repeated hundreds of times[/s] The frantic post hoc efforts of his advisers who want to reassure people like me that the more moderate statement Romney made on air is not his real position

[/quote]

Fxd.

It's kind of interesting that he began making those more strongly pro-life statements after he secured his post as Gov. of Massachusetts. Hmmmmm....

[Aloysius]

That's not the only statement I'm basing it off of, but that is a pretty good case-in-point example that follows the same pattern of many other statements he has made. He also said he doesn't foresee carrying out any abortion-related legislation in his administration, and he also said that Roe v Wade is settled law and will not be challenged by his administration. There are plenty of other statements, and those are backed up by a strong pro-choice record. It's not just the statement; I believe the statement because it's consistent with his record and the position he's consistently held for decades. You have to analyze a politicians words by comparing them to his record of actions; I believe I have made my case strongly enough that those "slips" are not in fact slips, because they are consistent with his actions. Pretty much time to rest my case and let the thousands of threads spawned by this speak for themselves, as it's all been hashed over pretty well already.

What is the explanation for him including the "health-of-the-mother" exemption? Did he just forget his position? Isn't it suspicious that he just happens to forget his position and slips out saying something that supports the position he's consistently held for a long time in public life, and has only changed during campaign seasons?

[Anomaly]

Church teaching allows for voting for the lesser of two evils to limit evil, but NEVER REQUIRES it.


That is one of the most offensive Catholic ideologies that makes me happy i am not Catholic.

How does that work with the Catholic teaching that it is okay to vote for the lesser of two evils with the qualification that you are at least limiting the greater evil that would likely be done by another candidate. Catholic teaching also says its a moral obligation to participate in civil structure. Maybe I'm missing something, but why isn't there a moral obligation to act for the greater good instead of the seeming idea better to do nothing in fear of making a mistake.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351445934' post='2499151']
Here's the thing.

All of your arguments just sound like a bunch of complaining without proposing any solutions.

None of you have convinced me that refusing to vote or voting third party will have any affect on anything. Sure, "if every Catholic voted this way" sounds amazing, but it's a pipe dream. I'm a husband. I'm a father. I live a realistic life in a realistic world. I do not teach my kids to accomplish goals by hope. I teach my kids how to accomplish real things with real results.

I just don't get it. I really don't. I've always thought I was a pretty rational guy. I'm losing friends left and right. Most of my family hates being around me.

The end.
[/quote]

I am in agreement with Jaime and Aloysius. I don't think that people ever win other people over with arguments. I for one am just screwing around instead of getting work done outside. But from what I've seen and learned is that the way you change somebodies mind is by winning them over as a friend.

Like for instance I have seen very popular Protestant pastors -- who had very bad criminal records. How did they become so popular and get people to overlook their past? They did it on an emotional level. They acted ashamed of what they had done earlier in their life, and focused on the present. They acted happy, optimistic, upbeat. They flattered and really built up and encouraged everybody in the congregation. People who didn't know the persons past would say "Wow he is a really really nice decent guy!" And people who did know his past would argue "I'm uncomfortable with his past but he is a changed man. Look what god has done in his life!"

The Mormons sell Mormonism in a similar way. They dress nice. They try very hard to sell themselves as wholesome decent family people. The Missionaries wear very formal clothes. They are taught to smile and be courteous and win people into the religion. The people who join feel that they have very good new friends. Very moral new friends that they can relax and feel good about. It's a very good group that they can feel good about making their family part of.

Ron Paul was one of Romney's toughest competitors. He was one of the founders of the Tea Party and he, and his son Rand Paul, had a conservative movement going and gaining momentum.

FOX News interestingly enough shot Ron Paul down. They took swipes at Ron Paul, they even faked things (Used footage from the CPAC Awards the year before when a group of Mormons booed Ron Paul when he won.)

One of the biggest strikes against Romney is that he is Pro-choice. Let's be honest about it the Mormon religion is Pro-choice. Beyond salesmanship we need to define what the conservative religious beliefs are that we value.

Living together out of wedlock and having sex out of wedlock are potentially destructive things because they can result in children being born who do not have the support of a father and mother working together. Divorce is bad -- after having children. The children are torn between the two parents. And abortion, and killing of young children is very clearly bad. So marriages are a potentially a good thing. But people should not just get married for the sake of being married. There needs to be a connection, and support, in the marriage. There needs to be "love" in the marriage. The Mormon religion pushes for marriage -- with or without love. I was shocked by the number of loveless marriages among the Mormons. Divorce is high in that religion.

The Mormons abstain from drinking coffee, tea, and alcohol. But they do not abstain from drinking soda pop. They drink it in large quantities to get the caffeine. And it is arguably worse for them than coffee or tea would be. There is a lot of diabetes among the Mormons. The current Mormon President, Monson, is a very good man who I actually have a lot of respect for -- but he is diabetic and it may shorten his life..

Abstaining from alcohol is an admirable ideal but what I saw in Utah was a culture of excess. Sort of an all-or-nothing culture. There was not a great deal of moderation in the culture. People drank a lot of soda pop, ate a lot of sweets, drove very fast, bought a lot of porn, the women had breast implants, and there was a hidden problem with alcoholism. I think that moderation may be a better approach to a balanced life.

My single Mormon college friends had very little free time to get together with me and do anything. I spent almost all of my free time with my non-Mormon friends. The Mormons seemed to have almost all of their free time, money, and energy used up by the LDS church. And it wasn't like they got a chance to rest. It was every week of every month of every year -- and if they stayed "active" would continue until the end of their life. They had very little time to spend with their families compared with the non-Mormons. "Family Home Evening" on Monday nights was an attempt by the LDS Church to get the families to spend a little more time together. They took a problem that they had in the LDS church -- and they turned it around and used it as an advertising campaign "FAMILY, IT'S ABOUT TIME". And they argued "We devote every Monday evening to our families!"

Mormonism can be very very controlling. As a member of the Mormon church you have to be a member for at least two years to get your "Temple Recommend" so that you can enter the Temple and do baptisms for the dead, or attend a Mormon marriage. And this "Temple Recommend" must be renewed every year. The Bishop of each Ward gives a Temple Recommend interview every year and decides who gets their Temple Recommend -- and who doesn't. You had better stay on the good side of the Bishop. You better do what he asks you too. You had better stay on the good side of the people within your Ward. Because every single year you are going to have to renew this. One of the Temple Recommend questions is "Do you pay a full ten percent in Tithing?"

Is this morality? Is this "Clean Living"? Are these people "Fiscal Conservatives"? I know that I am not going to change anybodies position by writing this but it's just something to think about. Something to chew on.

Obama is "Pro-choice", George Hubert Walker Bush was "Pro-choice", George W Bush's wife is "Pro-choice". And I would have to say that Romney is "Pro-choice". Romney does not win my support on the basis of his position on abortion. And I am really uncomfortable with him because of his being a Mormon. I think that it's ridiculous to support Romney by vaguely arguing that he is a Mormon -- and they have good values. Let's be specific. He is [b]NOT[/b] going to vote against legalized abortions. He might vote against a young girl getting an abortion without the notification of her parents. And he might vote against an abortion pill, but that is about it.

Remember who it was that got abortion going in the United States and arguably the world? Yes Ronald Reagan as Governor or California. He was the first to legalize abortion. Then the other states followed Ronald Reagan's lead in California. And the rest of the world followed suit. Yes.. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat at that time. But he was still the same man! It wasn't like it was a different person!

I think that we need to define what we really believe -- [b]specifically[/b] -- and what we really want in a nation. Like Ron Paul and Rand Paul were doing with the Tea Party.

Edited October 28, 2012 by southern california guy

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351457182' post='2499212']
Church teaching allows for voting for the lesser of two evils to limit evil, but NEVER REQUIRES it.


That is one of the most offensive Catholic ideologies that makes me happy i am not Catholic.

How does that work with the Catholic teaching that it is okay to vote for the lesser of two evils with the qualification that you are at least limiting the greater evil that would likely be done by another candidate. Catholic teaching also says its a moral obligation to participate in civil structure. Maybe I'm missing something, but why isn't there a moral obligation to act for the greater good instead of the seeming idea better to do nothing in fear of making a mistake.
[/quote]
... I'm not sure I even know how to respond to that. We are free human beings with the capacity for reason; when multiple options come up and one option is a "lesser of two evils" that limits evil, and another option is to fight the good fight to the bitter end even when there is little chance of success, we have every right to make an informed decision between those two options, and to try to convince others to join us in our option... neither answer is necessarily better than the other answer, except to a dull utilitarian ideology that does not include the virtue of hope. see my response to Q in one or the other of these threads; it's totally moral to jump on your horse and ride into battle with a pitchfork in hand against a Nazi tank, you don't have to run off to join the Red Army in the hopes of having more success against the Nazis.

For we and all the kind of Christ are ignorant and brave, and we shall have wars we hardly win, and souls we hardly save

[homeschoolmom]

But isn't supporting Ron Paul, who is also not 100% pro life, also just supporting a lesser of two evils candidate?

[southern california guy]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1351459753' post='2499225']
But isn't supporting Ron Paul, who is also not 100% pro life, also just supporting a lesser of two evils candidate?
[/quote]

What do you mean that he's "..not 100% pro life"? What are you referring to?

[southern california guy]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351451191' post='2499177']
Why did the National Right to Life Committee endorse Romney?
[/quote]

They are? Here are some older videos about Mitt Romney.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz_ye-CNvDw&playnext=1&list=PL6B6B1A62DEA3E3F7&feature=results_main[/media]

I couldn't get the whole thing to work, so here is the link.

[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz_ye-CNvDw&playnext=1&list=PL6B6B1A62DEA3E3F7&feature=results_main"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz_ye-CNvDw&playnext=1&list=PL6B6B1A62DEA3E3F7&feature=results_main[/url]

Edited October 28, 2012 by southern california guy

[Jaime]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1351453395' post='2499192']
Let's say hypothetically... that he isn't really contributing as much as he claims to the LDS church....Or possibly that he gets a certain percentage of that money back...? Isn't that a great way to dodge taxes?!!!

And let's consider that the LDS church really wants him to win. And maybe they are claiming that he is contributing more than he is? Hmmm.... Now I am not implying that a church with such great moral virtue would do such a thing.. God forbid. I would never imply such a thing!

But if we consider that perhaps he really contributes that much money to the LDS church -- then he is a [b]VERY[/b] loyal Mormon. I don't know what that has to do with "integrity" -- unless loyalty and support for ones religion is the same thing as honesty and integrity. But if he really contributes that much money to his religion than I think that we can make a safe bet that the views of his religion -- the Church of Jesus Christ of the later day saints -- the ones that I've been talking about, are his views.
[/quote]


Ok keep up the hypotheticals. Let's say you are deeply attracted to men sexually. I mean you're pretty old to be single right?? You've posted some sexually inappropriate stories that you've written and a half naked pic of yourself on the phorum but I'm sure that was for the ladies... right??? rigggghhht!


See I can make up stuff too. Screwing with your tax returns is a felony. You lie, you usually get caught and it's hard to run for president when you are a felon and you can't vote.

What I'm saying is don't accuse a man of stealing when you have zero evidence.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1351460432' post='2499233']

What do you mean that he's "..not 100% pro life"? What are you referring to?
[/quote]
He wants to move the issue back to the states and let them decide. Many states would still allow abortions and, apparently, Paul's okay with that. Not saying he's not closer to what I would want in a candidate, but by the criteria of this thread, it would seem that Paul is pro-choice.

[Aloysius]

Like I said, choosing the lesser of two evils is an acceptable choice, not a required choice.

Ron Paul is only not pro-life on the issue of the "morning after" pill; which actually no presidential candidate has really stood up against anyway, and Ron Paul's major point is that the drug is fundamentally the same thing as any kind of contraceptive drug in its real chemical form; just like no one's out there illegalizing abortificient contraceptives, we can't really get plan-B stuff illegalized.

Other than that, Ron Paul supports overturning Roe v Wade, then introducing federal personhood legislation defining life as beginning at conception which would therefore afford federal constitutional protections to unborn children. In the mean time between accomplishing those two things (as the first thing would inevitably be easier to accomplish, his bill in congress to limit the court's jurisdiction over the abortion issue would legislatively overturn Roe v Wade by a majority vote in the congress; if it got miraculously passed I have a feeling both Obama and Romney would veto it though), the states would have the authority to decide the issue themselves, freeing them up to start passing their own abortion laws. Once federal personhood legislation went through, it would be incumbent upon the states to protect the life of the fetus the same way they have to have laws against all kinds of murder (as those are state laws).

Ron Paul is very pro-life, he was one of the most pro-life candidates in recent memory. He's not running for office anymore, but when he was he was extremely pro-life; he was painted by some as not being such because he had a different bent on things, and he saw through certain pointless distractions like the gender-selective abortion ban (which was a stupid and frivolous law that would have had no practical benefits--a total distraction)

Yeah, only thing I disagree with Dr. Paul on in terms of life issues is the morning after pill... but then, I'm not sure of what the proper policy to deal with the morning after pill would be, and I'm not sure I know of any politicians with actual plausible plans for dealing with the morning after pill... I suppose one could ban it; but if you're going to do that, shouldn't you ban ALL abortificient contraceptives?

EDIT to add the details:
Paul's Sanctity of Life act would have defined life as beginning at conception.
Paul's We the People Act would have taken away the ability of the Supreme Court to hear "right to privacy" claims related to the Abortion Issue; it was retroactive and would have therefore nullified Roe v. Wade allowing states to illegalize abortion again.

Those two practical acts are the best way forward for the pro-life movement, because they would 1) allow states to illegalize abortion and 2) establish constitutional protection for the unborn child's right to life at a Federal level

Edited October 28, 2012 by Aloysius

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1351460983' post='2499242']


Ok keep up the hypotheticals. Let's say you are deeply attracted to men sexually. I mean you're pretty old to be single right?? You've posted some sexually inappropriate stories that you've written and a half naked pic of yourself on the phorum but I'm sure that was for the ladies... right??? rigggghhht!


See I can make up stuff too. Screwing with your tax returns is a felony. You lie, you usually get caught and it's hard to run for president when you are a felon and you can't vote.

What I'm saying is don't accuse a man of stealing when you have zero evidence.
[/quote]
I miss the props button.

[Anomaly]

I think that is an egotistical and silly moral equivocation that doesn't consider the results if your action or inaction. You call it hopeless utilitarianism. I consider it rational and honest evaluation of your hoped for outcome.

The defense of tearing down Romney and the Republicans is mostly biased projection of what the may do or not do. You ignore the most likely negatives of keeping O and the Ds in power for four more years.

From which Party has legislation and efforts to expand and defend abortion come from? From which Party has legislation to restrict abortion come from? It is stupid strategy to say its better to limit the power of the one of the two parties that is least pro-abortion and give it to the pro-abortion party because it isn't anti-abortion enough.

It's stupid to think there's long term hope in ensuring immediate loss. I get and appreciate the hope for a third party, but its a long term goal that isn't helped by giving victory to those who are most antagonistic to the ideals of the third party. There's logical and intelligent reasons why Ron Paul was a part of the Republican Convention and not at the Democratic Convention. It's because, although he isn't exactly like the Standard Republicans, he shares more in principle with R supporters than D supporters.

It's politics on the National level. Whoever gets elected has to appeal to the greatest amount if voting public opinion. Sadly, being anti-abortion is not considered pro-life, but anti-women as demonstrated time and again. Any politician who is elected by the people has to distance him from the negatives his opponent will try to label him with.

Do you really think conceding the White-House and majority political power to Democrats is going to create a better political environment for any pro-life politicians, third party or not? If your answer is a sincere yes, then I would believe you are seriously delusional.