Romney vows to be 'pro-life president'

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Romney vows to be 'pro-life president'

Romney is getting strong on some the issues and is making solid statements.

AND,

Romney said he would stop public funds for Planned Parenthood "immediately" upon entering office.


Many people have little or no real "problem" with PP and the general concept.

But they are concerned about all the theft and corruption surrounding them IMO.



Mitt Romney sought to reassure anti-abortion-rights groups that he is on their side on Wednesday as he vowed to be a "pro-life president" if elected.

"I'm a pro-life candidate. I'll be a pro-life president," Romney said Wednesday during a campaign appearance in Ohio.

Romney also promised to end public health funding for Planned Parenthood — a group conservatives oppose because it provides abortions — and to bar U.S. foreign aid from funding the procedures.




posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
More flip flopping. I found another article that has part of your content but also says more.

Romney risks base with an appeal to center on abortion.

"Romney’s remarks a day earlier to the Des Moines Register’s editorial board played into his efforts to moderate his positions as the Nov. 6 election approaches.

“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” Romney told newspaper yesterday before an event in the swing state of Iowa.

Romney didn’t specify what he would do if a Republican- controlled Congress passed abortion legislation and sent it to him to sign into law. His running-mate, Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, sponsored a bill during the last Congress that would deem a fetus a person and effectively criminalize abortion without exceptions, including for rape victims. "




And people still think they know who they are electing? Better check in election day...you might be voting for a liberal on that day.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Well I certainly can't speak for everyone, and I'm no Romney fan, but I don't want my tax dollars going towards abortions.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I've never met a person who said they were "pro-life" who was actually pro-life.

The same people who say that it is murder to kill a fetus, have no problem with pre-emptive wars, the collateral damage that occurs from them, or even the death penalty.

Just for once in my life, I would like to hear from a person who is pro-life, from the womb to the tomb. How easy it is for a politician to claim to be pro-life. What does that mean, exactly?

From what I gather from the many hypocrites, pro-life means you don't want a woman to get an abortion, no matter what....but once the baby is born and is just another person, it's open season. Who cares if that child is abused, starved, or neglected? Nobody wants to pay for it. Who cares if that child grows up and kills another...then kill him too! Who cares if the child has brown skin and lives in the middle east? One less Muslim to hate us for our freedoms! (Note: this is not how I feel, this is how I imagine pro-lifers feel).

Just another wedge issue that a politician can crow about, in lieu of real solutions to real problems...and if you imagine that abortion is our biggest problem in this country, I have a most excellent antique bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
edit on 10-10-2012 by FissionSurplus because: grammar



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
peace is a non-profit venture

the US is controlled by private money interest

those interests gain profit through war

hence

Mitt is spouting lies regarding any "pro life" promise.

Protection of life is non profit

(begin list again)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Ssssoooo... the same guy who wants to slash social programs, in an already fatigued and depressed economy, also wants to make it more difficult for the poor to avoid bringing babies that they can't afford into the world.


I am not math major but this one seems like it is going to add up badly. I mean really? Seriously? In the next election cycle I predict that the slogan will be "Thanks for watching, and please spay or neuter your poor".

~Heff



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
how many times has a republican president been in office and abortion is still legal.

how many times have the republicans controlled the senate and congress and abortion is still legal.

how many times have the majority of justices in the supreme court been republicans and roe v. wade wasn't overturned.

its all b.s.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
Romney vows to be 'pro-life president'

Romney is getting strong on some the issues and is making solid statements.


So I suppose you consider flip flopping as being "strong" and "solid" in your positions?



People do change, understandably. Although, given that we're within a month from election time, the enthusiasm gap Romney's still facing from his supporters, there's nothing understable about him switching his position so conveniently, without any accountability of his past comments.


Many people have little or no real "problem" with PP and the general concept.

But they are concerned about all the theft and corruption surrounding them IMO.


If these concerns merely surround supposed "theft" and "corruption" within planned parenthood then why bring it up in a "pro-life" thread? If the opposition against funding PP have little to nothing to do with abortions, then there's just no point bringing it up into that debate now does it?

Also just on a further note, there are many pro-choicers who are pro-lifers on a personal level. While I support the right of a women to choose what she feels is right with her body, I don't personally support abortions myself, it wouldn't be an option for unless it concerned a life or death situation, or the circumstances of the child that may impact throughout life.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
In regards to Pro-Life Republicans. This article says it all.

BTW - - one of the very first things GW Bush did as president - - - was stop all funding to foreign Women's clinics.

My opinion of that is not printable.


Study: Free Birth Control Slashes Abortion Rates


By Olivia B. Waxman - October 5, 2012

What would happen if women at risk for unintended pregnancies received the birth control of their choice — especially the more effective kinds — at no cost?

The national abortion rate would plummet, according to a study conducted by researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology on Thursday.

healthland.time.com...



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
I've never met a person who said they were "pro-life" who was actually pro-life.

The same people who say that it is murder to kill a fetus, have no problem with pre-emptive wars, the collateral damage that occurs from them, or even the death penalty.


These same people also support cutting social and support programmes that many single and young mothers, who's taken the path of pregnancy, have depended on the survive. It is mind boggling right, how one can claim to support the right to life, but then not actually practive what they preach once that life is out of the womb.
edit on 10-10-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Of course idiots who should've went down the father's leg or should've been aborted are pro life....because if
their parents had a brain they wouldn't be here right now.
edit on 10-10-2012 by ldyserenity because: spelling



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Here we go again. Romney with the usual flip flop shuffle.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


You got it. Apparently, life has more meaning before birth, than after.

The wedge issues of abortion and homosexuality are always trotted out by idiot politicians to appeal to small-minded voters. They somehow equate somebody who is anti-abortion and anti-homo as somehow morally upright and honest.

Then when the politician wins the election due to such a deluded electorate, they laugh all the way to the bank. Romney playing this old chestnut so close to election time is akin to a Hail Mary pass in football.

Let's face it, our government, with all of its actions, leads me to believe that it is anti-life.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
To put abortion into perspective.....

from 2008 article:

By the time you read this sentence, America will have passed a tragic, momentous, and most sobering milestone. Within a day or two of January 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, baby number 50,000,000 will have been sacrificed on the altar of Roe v. Wade.

The magnitude of the killing is staggering. Fifty million represents a population greater than any state, greater than California (36 million), greater than the next two largest states—Texas and New York—combined (23 million and 19 million, respectively). In fact, if you combined the entire populations of all of the 25 states with the fewest people, it still would not equal 50 million.

Of course, the issue isn’t numbers. Each abortion represents at least one lost life and what may be a deeply wounded woman’s soul. Families, too, suffer, and society itself pays a dear price, with lost innovation, productivity, and creativity.

How many great books, symphonies, films have been lost? How many profitable businesses never came to be? What if we aborted the child who would have found the cure for cancer? How much love and laughter has the world been deprived of?

Fifty Million Lost Lives Since 1973
 


real time meters:
Number of Abortions - Abortion Counters

as of oct 10, 2012 at 4:30pm PST:


In United States today
2,348

US since 1973: Roe vs Wade
55,529,436

By Planned Parenthood since 1970
6,251,915

By Planned Parenthood this year
263,529

United States this Year
969,821

US this Year after
16 weeks gestation
51,400

US this Year due to rape
or incest
9,407

Worldwide since 1980
1,271,064,788

Worldwide this Year
31,436,671

Worldwide Today
75,216



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Didn’t Romney badger a young woman to give up her child for adoption because she was single when he was working with LDS? This is the guy people are pushing for. He is one slimy $@$#@!!!



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I don't think there is any such thing as a 'pro life' president.
The SCOTUS has already made abortion legal. It's here to stay.
There is nothing any POTUS can do about it.
That's why I think abortion is a non-issue in campaigns.
A POTUS can have his personal opinion on the matter, but it'll never change the law.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
More flip flopping. I found another article that has part of your content but also says more.

Romney risks base with an appeal to center on abortion.

"Romney’s remarks a day earlier to the Des Moines Register’s editorial board played into his efforts to moderate his positions as the Nov. 6 election approaches.

“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” Romney told newspaper yesterday before an event in the swing state of Iowa.

Romney didn’t specify what he would do if a Republican- controlled Congress passed abortion legislation and sent it to him to sign into law. His running-mate, Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, sponsored a bill during the last Congress that would deem a fetus a person and effectively criminalize abortion without exceptions, including for rape victims. "




And people still think they know who they are electing? Better check in election day...you might be voting for a liberal on that day.


How is he flip flopping? Where on the campaign trail did Romney state he was pro choice?



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Ssssoooo... the same guy who wants to slash social programs, in an already fatigued and depressed economy, also wants to make it more difficult for the poor to avoid bringing babies that they can't afford into the world.


I am not math major but this one seems like it is going to add up badly. I mean really? Seriously? In the next election cycle I predict that the slogan will be "Thanks for watching, and please spay or neuter your poor".

~Heff


You are right. We need less poor. I say we give licenses to wealthy individuals, they can go and kill these poor people dragging down the economy. We would make a 'killing' on the license fees too. Two birds with one stone.

If you are not for that how about we do not connect human life to the economy. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


how about we do not connect human life to the economy. Thanks
sure wish that was possible but since birth generates a new FR bond, it's a done deal.

don't y'all get it yet ??
more babies = more money from the FR for the Feds
once born and bonded, death is imminent so they feel it is their duty to speed up the process, hence IPABs.

they could care less about "life" ... it's about the $$ that life generates upon birth !!!



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


So. You're volunteering to support all of the unwanted babies born during a potential Romney Presidency? Or are you trying to disconnect the economy from reality?

Are you saying that you find children dying in the streets less morally repugnant? Because you can't have it both ways.

~Heff



top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join