Aloysius Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 You've gotta be kidding me dUSt. Stop taking this so personally. You realize you just told me not to volunteer at pro-life events because my mistrust of politicians clearly indicates I will not accept people who used to be pro-choice? I am fully willing to accept a convert from a pro-choice position; but I will absolutely be critical of a former pro-choice politician if they continue to say things that sound pro-choice after their conversion, especially if their conversion looks like it was done for political gain. Alright, so it appears in that interview he was making a dichotomy between "legislation" and "executive order". That's something that I didn't quite notice before, it's easy to hear the statement that one doesn't foresee any abortion related legislation and take it to mean that there will be nothing at all abortion related. Fine. He doesn't want any abortion-related legislation, but he will use an executive order on the Mexico City Policy. It's a pretty subtle distinction he made so that he could make a statement that would sound pretty broadly re-assuring to pro-choicers (even if they generally reject it and don't believe him on it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351873943' post='2502974'] You keep bringing this up to tear down Romney, but what's the point and effect? It's either R or D that will have the significant political power with the Presidency in 2013-2016. So if the Democrats and Obama have the Presidency for the next four years, there's any hope that it's more likely any legislation will be offered? And if it's likely, considering the Dem party's explicit ideology that Government SHOULD NOT restrict abortion and restriction should be vigorously defended against, there is any hope it could pass? That ideology is the reason why the Mexico City Policy is toothless. Which Party's ideology forces comprimise in legislation like this that makes it a political show? Pro-life proponents propose legislation (Repub's look good submitting it because a significant amount of their supporters want it), and the Pro-abortion proponents rip the teeth out (Dem's look good neutering it because a significant amount of their supporters don't want Government Restrictions). You are advocating crippling the Republican party because it isn't pro-life enough, but the result is, power goes to the Democrats who are adamently against Government restriction. I don't think you are being intellectually honest in evaluating the real world consequences. [/quote] we've been through this a thousand times Anomaly. I reject many of your premises and we've debated them pretty thoroughly... I don't think the Republican Party gaining power under Romney will result in more pro-life stuff being done; I think it will result in less openness to pro-life positions within the Republican Party, with little to nothing actually being done under the Romney administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351874328' post='2502978'] we've been through this a thousand times Anomaly. I reject many of your premises and we've debated them pretty thoroughly... I don't think the Republican Party gaining power under Romney will result in more pro-life stuff being done; I think it will result in less openness to pro-life positions within the Republican Party, with little to nothing actually being done under the Romney administration. [/quote]I know. I'm stubborn, and think you're wrong and think I'm right. I've conceded defeat in the face of your stubborness and am hopeful others may be reading these threads and give my points serious consideration and come to agree with me to the benefit of the pro-life movement in the political arena in the next four years. You've made your point, why don't you give it a rest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351874135' post='2502977'] He doesn't want any abortion-related legislation, but he will use an executive order on the Mexico City Policy. [/quote] Lol. You're unbelievable man. [i]"He doesn't want any abortion-related legislation."[/i] That is also dishonest and misleading. If this has become a joke to you now, just say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Because I'm in this study center and these Spanish guys keep whispering loudly so I'm too distracted to finish reading this Malinowski excerpt. lol. I get it man, I think we've said all we can say and just need to let our arguments stand for the general readers of the thread. For what it's worth, I think your posts have represented your position very well, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351874815' post='2502983'] Lol. You're unbelievable man. [i]"He doesn't want any abortion-related legislation."[/i] That is also dishonest and misleading. If this has become a joke to you now, just say it. [/quote] umm.. that's exactly what he said in the quote. he contrasted "legislation" with the executive orders he would pass which was not legislation; I was admitting that I was wrong to say "nothing abortion related" because he was making the distinction between legislation and executive orders when he said that. sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351874959' post='2502985'] umm.. that's exactly what he said in the quote. [/quote] No, it's not. I'm not going to keep this going with you. I trust people will read his official stances and not form their opinion of him based on outdated quotes taken out of context, as you have done. Romney's stance, color-coded for better reading comprehension: “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... [color=#ff0000][b]I will reinstate the Mexico City Policy[/b][/color].[b][color=#ff8c00] I’ll cut off funding for the United Nations Population Fund[/color][/b], which supports China’s abhorrent one child policy. [color=#800080][b]I’ll ensure that abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood get no taxpayer dollars[/b][/color]. And [color=#008000][b]I’ll reverse Obama regulations that attack our religious freedom and threaten innocent life[/b][/color]. I’ll nominate judges who respect the Constitution, are proponents of judicial restraint, and know the difference between personal opinion and law." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 “There is an urgent need for the lay faithful, in cooperation with those of other faiths or none, to impress upon our elected representatives the vital importance of religious liberty for a free society. On November 6, we have an opportunity—and an obligation—to do just that.†[b]- Cardinal Francis George[/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts