Will All Of You Pro-romney People Apologize When...

[Jaime]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351732014' post='2501594']
I do not think it is a waste of time either.

Despite what my fellow phatmassers are saying about holding out for a "true pro-life candidate", the fact is, to the average American, Romney [b]is[/b] the pro-life candidate. So, when Americans and the media see people voting third party or not voting, all they see is people not voting for the pro-life guy (as perceived by most Americans). So, despite the anti-Romney camp's good intentions and their strategy of "making it better for the future", they quite possibly could just be making it worse, because in the eyes of most Americans, the "pro-life" candidate was [b]not[/b] supported by the people who were supposedly suppose to care for such things--making it that much easier to dismiss the pro-life agenda in the future.
[/quote]

Sometimes you don't seem too smart

[Norseman82]

ICL (Illinois Citizens for Life) ratings for the general election:

[url="http://www.icl-life.com/Gen12.pdf"]http://www.icl-life.com/Gen12.pdf[/url]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1351729350' post='2501545']
Don't you people have doorbells to be answering every five seconds??
[/quote]

Best line of the thread so far!

[Norseman82]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1351726042' post='2501481']
What a silly thing for him to say... Just about every person in America "has access" to birth control. Every CVS and Walgreens in the country has it. Having access and having someone else pay for it are two different things.
[/quote]

You beat me to it!

[Aloysius]

Romney said he didn't want employers to be able to "limit access" to contraceptives. Since the only way in which employers possibly have an impact on that is by whether they include it in their health insurance, the obvious implication was that employers shouldn't be able to choose not to include it in their insurance plans... if he didn't have a Romney-care record of enforcing the exact same type of mandate, I might be able to let that slide and think that he mis-spoke or was just playing the political game, but seeing as that position is illustrated by his decades-long stances and his actual record as a governor, I tend to believe that's what he meant.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351726341' post='2501483']
But here's the thing: Romney believes in omnipresent government. He believes in social programs. He believes in a government empowered to provide or take whatever it wants. He loves big government.

And he isn't truly Pro-life.
[/quote]


Winchester that is false, you should be ashamed of yourself to post this ! Romney believs in state level government as the constitution provides for. He has never been "big government" how can you just invent things like this and post them as if truth. Romney has said repeatedly that issues such as health care and many others are to be enacted through state level legislation and are not allowed under the U.S constitution.
If you are really worried about a "Big Government " President why don't you mention the fact that Obama has increased the government dramatically, more than any other President. Obama has hired 16,000 I.R.S. agents to enforce the health care mandate alone. Obama has signed over 140 presidential orders, he has bypassed the congress involving the U.S. in two war actions thereby flaunting the constitution. He has illegally taken government control of private businesses, he has spent billions on useless green energy, this list goes on and on.

ed

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1351726741' post='2501497']
Which it isn't. Ever. Even if the mother could die.
[/quote]

Not exactly true, if a life saving procedure which could save the mothers life yet not have a direct effect of killing the child is ok, even if there is a chance the child might die. In that case it is up to the will of God.

ed

[Anomaly]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1351732529' post='2501603']

That's a silly argument.
[/quote]no it isn't. It's the same vein as people seeing Catholics like Biden defend government paid abortion and contraception and conclude its only a few old fashioned out if touch Bishops oppose abortion and free contraception.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351735856' post='2501703']
Romney said he didn't want employers to be able to "limit access" to contraceptives. Since the only way in which employers possibly have an impact on that is by whether they include it in their health insurance, the obvious implication was that employers shouldn't be able to choose not to include it in their insurance plans... if he didn't have a Romney-care record of enforcing the exact same type of mandate, I might be able to let that slide and think that he mis-spoke or was just playing the political game, but seeing as that position is illustrated by his decades-long stances and his actual record as a governor, I tend to believe that's what he meant.
[/quote]


Thats truly a neat spin on truths Aloysius, under Obamacare employers have no control over what health care covers. Employers have no control over the access to contraceptive measures at all.

Under the plan that Romney proposes states will vote individually on their states health care programs, allowing each state to provide what the populace votes to be enacted in their state.

ed

[Winchester]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1351736813' post='2501719']


Thats truly a neat spin on truths Aloysius, under Obamacare employers have no control over what health care covers. Employers have no control over the access to contraceptive measures at all.

Under the plan that Romney proposes states will vote individually on their states health care programs, allowing each state to provide what the populace votes to be enacted in their state.

ed
[/quote]
That's not a "plan". That's the Constitution.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351735856' post='2501703']
Romney said he didn't want employers to be able to "limit access" to contraceptives. Since the only way in which employers possibly have an impact on that is by whether they include it in their health insurance, the obvious implication was that employers shouldn't be able to choose not to include it in their insurance plans... if he didn't have a Romney-care record of enforcing the exact same type of mandate, I might be able to let that slide and think that he mis-spoke or was just playing the political game, but seeing as that position is illustrated by his decades-long stances and his actual record as a governor, I tend to believe that's what he meant.
[/quote]
I think you are still stuck in the Santorum vs Romney time warp. There's two candidates left bro. Pick one.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351737057' post='2501724']
I think you are still stuck in the Santorum vs Romney time warp. There's two candidates left bro. Pick one.
[/quote]
I've never entered a fight because I thought I would win.

[PhuturePriest]

Absolutely amazing. A debate topic I actually got bored of. This only happens every once in a while. This is the summary of this entire debate ranging from at least ten threads:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-k5J4RxQdE

[qfnol31]

You're missing out. There's a lot of good gold buried here.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351737057' post='2501724']
I think you are still stuck in the Santorum vs Romney time warp. There's two candidates left bro. Pick one.
[/quote]
lol yes, of course, criticisms of Romney are only valid when Santorum is in the race. When Santorum is out of the race, suddenly Romney is now above criticism.

lol, I believe I made this point in the thread posted about the history of Romney's morning after pill mandate in Massachusetts.

And as regards the states healthcare issue: Romney was absolutely on record saying that Romney-care would make a great model for a federal program, he has only become against it as a federal program because it has been politically expedient to do so; and of course he's already even turned around on that pretty far, saying he wants to keep much of it in place.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1351736379' post='2501714']
Not exactly true, if a life saving procedure which could save the mothers life yet not have a direct effect of killing the child is ok, even if there is a chance the child might die. In that case it is up to the will of God.

ed
[/quote]
Exactly. And that would not be an abortion. That would be the very, very unfortunate side effect of a life saving treatment for the mother. Ergo, abortion is still not okay. Ever.