Don't Hate. Romney Is 99% More Pro-life Than Obama.

[Winchester]

[mod]heresy--Budge[/mod]

[LadyOfSorrows]

So, curious about this topic, I spoke with a fairly high member of the clergy about a week ago on this same issue. This member of the clergy stated that realistically, in the United States, it's impossible to 100 percent eradicate abortion...at once. We need to focus on what we can do right now. We can abolish it completely, but that may have to come in steps. If we can eradicate 90 percent of abortion, then let's do it. Once people are warmed up to it, we can abolish the rest. Even though Romney may not be able to get rid of it 100 percent, he is the better candidate in terms of abortion because he will follow the party platform and will work for pro-life legislation. Small steps....small steps. I'm working with someone on abolishing the death penalty at the moment, and we know that it's impossible for each state to get rid of it at the same time. So the focus is state by state. Voting for Obama doesn't advance the pro-life effort. Voting for Romney does.

[missionseeker]

I think the correct phrase would be "voting for Romney will probably do less to hinder the pro-life movement than voting for Obama"

[LadyOfSorrows]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1351824742' post='2502562']
I think the correct phrase would be "voting for Romney will probably do less to hinder the pro-life movement than voting for Obama"
[/quote]

No, I stand by my statement. Romney would advance the pro-life movement because he stands by his party platform. His party platform isn't perfect, and we all know that. But it's a step in the right direction. Pro-life legislation will have a better chance of being put into place in a Romney White House than an Obama White House.

[missionseeker]

How's that?

[Aloysius]

he doesn't stand by his party's platform at all. on life issues, the party platform is absolutely great--100% pro-life. when asked about the platform, the Romney Campaign explicitly said they had no intention to be bound by the party platform, I think it was Reince Priebus who said something along the lines of 'does anybody even read those things'... I really cannot stand that man.

there is plenty of reason to believe that Romney will not advance the pro-life cause one iota. he said he doesn't foresee doing anything abortion related as president, and he deflected a question about life by including the pro-abortion "health of the mother" argument that is used to justify 99% of abortions. he said that it's the democrats who make abortion an issue every election, but that he sees it as the settled law of the land and it shouldn't be an issue in this election. sure he's said some things contradicting those things, but the fact that he's said those things should give us all pause.

I've seen it basically come down to people admitting that he won't do anything; and saying at least he wouldn't do as many bad things as Obama. that's really about as far as you can go with him though, if you actually think he's going to advance a pro-life agenda, you're living in a dream world, mate.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351826681' post='2502604']
he said he doesn't foresee doing anything abortion related as president, and he deflected a question about life by including the pro-abortion "health of the mother" argument that is used to justify 99% of abortions.
[/quote]
These are misleading dishonest claims that have been refuted over and over again. Please stop.

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351826681' post='2502604']
he said he doesn't foresee doing anything abortion related as president
[/quote]
[i]"Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. He will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work. And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law." - Romneys official stance[/i]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351826681' post='2502604']
he deflected a question about life by including the pro-abortion "health of the mother" argument that is used to justify 99% of abortions.
[/quote]
[i]"I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to [b]save the life of the mother[/b]. I support the reversal of Roe vs. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine." - [/i][i]Romneys official stance[/i]

I do not think you are a misleading and dishonest person Aloysious, but you keep trying to change my mind.

[LadyOfSorrows]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1351826361' post='2502598']
How's that?
[/quote]


I just stated:

"Pro-life legislation will have a better chance of being put into place in a Romney White House than an Obama White House."

A Romney White House would have never allowed the passing of the HHS mandate, which tells the Church to go against her conscience by providing coverage for birth control, abortion causing drugs, sterilization, etc, for example. If an anti-abortion bill ever came across Obama's desk, he would never allow it to go through because his platform prides itself on "women's rights." On the federal level, it would be almost impossible to advance pro-life legislation. Romney, being a member of the Republican party, is part of a platform that prides itself on being against abortion (not in all cases of course, but arguably most since most pregnancies don't come from cases of rape or incest). This allows pro-life legislation to have a chance at being passed. This would not be possible if Obama is reelected.

Voting for a third party candidate isn't a bad thing if you're doing it for the right reasons. But what I think dUSt is trying to get across is that a third party candidate just does not have the chance of getting elected and reversing the damage that would continue to grow if Obama is reelected. There are many pressing issues in this election-- issues that are historical for being so incredibly radical. If Obama is reelected, the Church will continue to be attacked and forced to go against what she stands for. It's an issue that requires immediate action from US Catholics. [i]Unfortunately[/i], Romney is the only one who has a chance at being elected who will reverse the mandate and stand up for the pro-life movement. This is why it is important to vote for him if we want to avoid what will likely come about in the next four years.

[LadyOfSorrows]

Also, a good article.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/23/mitt-romney-is-not-soft-on-pro-life-abortion-issues/

[missionseeker]

Romney did pass something very like the HHS mandate in Mass. So to say he never would have done that is to deny what he has actually done.

[LadyOfSorrows]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1351828242' post='2502651']
Romney did pass something very like the HHS mandate in Mass. So to say he never would have done that is to deny what he has actually done.
[/quote]

Even if this is true, he will not impose something like it federally and promised to get rid of these implications of the HHS mandate. So....

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351827858' post='2502637']
I do not think you are a misleading and dishonest person Aloysious, but you keep trying to change my mind.
[/quote]
I acknowledged that he has said things that contradict the things I posted, but he has indeed said the things I posted and that has not been refuted. I didn't say it was his officially approved stance that found its way onto his website after passing focus groups, I said that he deflected a question about abortion issues by using the "health of the mother" exemption, and by claiming that he would not do anything related to abortion in his administration. Those are facts. He said those things, and those things are consistent with his record.

I'll provide the dates so that it is clear that he's saying this during this election cycle, because it rather sounds like the stuff he said in his previous pro-choice statements so we should be clear that he's saying the same type of stuff here:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/romney-im-in-favor-of-legal-abortion-for-health-and-life-of-mother-rape-inc
[b]August 28, 2012:[/b]
“No. My position has been clear throughout this campaign. I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the [b]health [/b]and life of the mother,”
"But recognize, this is a decision that will be made by the Supreme Court. The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It’s been settled for some time in the courts."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-promises-no-abortion-legislation-004508435--election.html
[b]Octtober 10, 2012[/b]
"There's [b]no legislation with regards to abortion [/b]that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda,"

Oh, but wait, his spokesperson fixed that, right?:
""Gov. Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life," spokeswoman Andrea Saul said, [b]declining to elaborate.[/b]"

Oh wow, my faith in him has been restored! [/sarcasm]

[Aloysius]

[quote name='LadyOfSorrows' timestamp='1351828917' post='2502668']

Even if this is true, he will not impose something like it federally and promised to get rid of these implications of the HHS mandate. So....
[/quote]
[b]2009: [/b]Romney supports using Romney-care as a national model. His criticisms of Obama in this video refer to the plan Obama campaigned on putting in place, Obama ended up instead following the Romney plan, so Romney decided to be against it:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M9gGwW2gCs[/media]

[b]September 2012: [/b]After securing the Republican Nomination, he returns to a position that he would put into place the type of plan he had in place in Massachusetts, citing three aspects of Obama's plan that absolutely require a mandate for them to work, and citing the Massachusetts mandate plan for an example of how he could get them done:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMxjQ0hhL4o[/media]

[b]October 2012: [/b]Considering that he wants to replace Obama-care with his Massachusetts style system, which includes mandates, I can think of only one proper interpretation of his statement here:
"I’d just note that I don't believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and [b]I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. [/b]Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives. And the President’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong."
Clearly that statement only makes sense if employers are not able to exempt contraceptive care from the mandated insurance plans.

Oh, but I'm sure I'm wrong. You should just listen to his propaganda website for his official positions, and ignore it when he slips up and actually says the same stuff he's been saying for decades of public life and indicates that he'll do the same stuff he's done before. Ignore that part, it's his [i]official[/i] carefully crafted positions that matter.

[Anomaly]

All politicians lie and they, like their supports, believe in the exact OPPOSITE of their party's platform.

So we Should vote for Democrats and Obama if we think the Government should support, and defend abortion.

[b]Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose[/b]. [b]The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade [/b]and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. [b]We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right[/b]. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; [b]there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way[/b]. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351829058' post='2502673']
and by claiming that he would not do anything related to abortion in his administration. Those are facts.[/quote]
No, that is a lie, by your own admission, in your very same post:

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351829058' post='2502673']"There's [b]no legislation with regards to abortion [/b]that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda,"[/quote]

Here's his official position:

[i]“I will not forget that a strong country needs more than a strong economy. It needs strong families and strong values as well... President Obama once said that decisions about abortion are ‘above his pay grade.’ I’ll never be so cavalier about life. I will be a pro-life president... I will reinstate the Mexico City Policy. I’ll cut off funding for the United Nations Population Fund, which supports China’s abhorrent one child policy. I’ll ensure that abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood get no taxpayer dollars. And I’ll reverse Obama regulations that attack our religious freedom and threaten innocent life. I’ll nominate judges who respect the Constitution, are proponents of judicial restraint, and know the difference between personal opinion and law."[/i]