Posted on 12/28/2011 8:43:31 AM PST by julieee
Rick Perry Now Opposes Abortions in Cases of Rape, Incest
Washington, DC -- At a pro-life presidential forum last night, Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry announced that he had a change of heart on abortion in cases of rape or incest -- now opposing abortion in such rare cases.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/28/rick-perry-now-opposes-abortions-in-cases-of-rape-incest/
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
And he wouldn’t be saying that just for political gain..
Of course not, no politician in the history of politics has ever said anything just for political gain.
“This is something that is relatively new and it goes back to a meeting with Rebecca Kiessling, who was at the The Gift of Life,” Perry said about meeting her at a recent showing of the new movie. “We had a fairly lengthy and heartfelt conversation about how she was conceived in rape. Looking in her eyes, I couldn’t come up with an answer to defend exceptions for rape and incest.”*******
Perry has been a consistent advocate for life. I find this story heartening and very believable.
Good for Governor Perry.
This is hardly a position that will be politically favorable in the general election.
Welcome to this side of the isle Perry. Most true Pro-Life conservatives have been here with God from the beginning. We never needed a run for the presidency to believe that even in the case of rape or incest, life is life and requires defending from the moment of conception.
Although I was against abortion back to the time of Roe v Wade, I used to tolerate the use of abortion in the instance of rape or incest. Over the years, I have changed my mind. Abortion is the murder of an innocent life & now I have come to the same conclusion as Perry.
Why is it that someone like Newt Gingrich can change his mind over the years, but Perry is doing it for political expediency? I see a lot of hypocrisy and outright spreading of lies on FreeRepublic so much anymore, it’s sad.
It’s amazing how candidates are now courting the conservative base.
I’m just worn-out-sick-and-tired of the Federal government.
And folks say Perry is dumb...
“Why is it that someone like Newt Gingrich can change his mind over the years, but Perry is doing it for political expediency? I see a lot of hypocrisy and outright spreading of lies on FreeRepublic so much anymore, it’s sad.”
Because when Newt does it, he is labeled as a “Socialist, Progressive, RINO SOB” by many of the people pushing Perry as a no nonsense, rock-solid, tough conservative, rootin-tootin cowboy.
I personally dont care when a person arrives to a position as long as they are genuinely a believer.
Do I think Perry IS just doing the “tell Evangelicals whatever I think they need to hear” game? Yep.
Why is it that someone like Newt Gingrich can change his mind over the years, but Perry is doing it for political expediency? I see a lot of hypocrisy and outright spreading of lies on FreeRepublic so much anymore, it’s sad.You could say the same thing about Newt, just change the placing of the names in your sentence, and it is still true.
Why is it that someone like Perry can change his mind over the years, but Newt Gingrich is doing it for political expediency? I see a lot of hypocrisy and outright spreading of lies on FreeRepublic so much anymore, it’s sad.Funny thing about the way we will defend to the death our own candidate, but if the opposing candidate just sneezes without using a tissue, they are dead to us.
It’s not a long stretch to go from the “exception” stance, to the conclusion Perry says he has reached now. I have no trouble believing that upon meeting someone who was the result of a rape or incest - that a mind could be changed quite easily.
Do I believe Gingrich is sincere in his turnabout? I have some hesitation about it, simply because of his background as a government solutions kind of guy. It is hard to teach an old dog new tricks. That’s not to say that it is impossible, but he hasn’t fully convinced me yet.
Besides, I don’t think Newt has the organization or money to make it through the long slog. I really think he entered the race to be a voice of ‘debate’ - I don’t think he ever dreamed he would be where he is now - and I don’t think he is prepared for that either. Perry is much more prepared for the tough road to come, he had a rough start - but he is starting to hit his stride now.
Man oh man! What they’ll say during an election cycle.
I’d like a candidate who would commit to the following:
Never vote for any piece of legislation that violates the Constitution’s strict limits on government power.
As President,only exercise authority within the confines of the Constitution,
Rein in runaway federal government by binding it with the chains of the constitution.
Term limits for Congress.
Perhaps Perry has always opposed abortion in such cases, but he had forgotten and now remembers..
Of course, you have a valid point - but it does amaze me that so many on this site had total derision for Newt just a few short months ago - and for good reasons (Dede Scazzafaso(sp), global warming/Pelosi, etc) - but NOW, that is all different, because Newt says he has changed in such a short amount of time. Many of these same people looked for Perry to jump in the race because it was seen that he could be a real contender.
What happened? Newt has a silver tongue and Perry has an iron one. A pretty talker vs a not-so-pretty talker. I hear that Newt is challenging Romney to a one-on-one debate, because of the negative ads Romney has out against him in Iowa. I’m sure Romney is laughing about that - he doesn’t have to debate Newt because he has the money to launch ad after ad against him. Because Newt is low on funds - all he has to go on is his debating skills (same as with Obama) - but the guy that has the money is the guy that sits in the cat-bird seat. He doesn’t have to agree to Newt’s challenges & so Newt needs so much more to effectively counter that.
But this is off topic to this thread. I do believe that once Perry thought it through - he came to the same conclusion that I did. As I said, it’s not a long stretch.
True, it is not a big stretch, unless you are a Godless feminazi.
However, when it comes to matters of the womb, I will always be more skeptical of a man, or woman, who strengthens their pro-life stance while running for office, then I will be of ones who have a change of heart in the matter of global warming until the specifics of the science are properly explained to them, or if they supported a leftist Republican in a New York district that just might never ever elect a true conservative.
I am a Christian first and foremost, when it comes to the matters of the womb, I pay attention, and I have paid attention to all the candidates stances through the years.
No one has a better pro-life voting record than Bauchmann, Santorum, and Gingrich. As I said, I welcome Perry, just as I welcome Romney to my side of the pro-life isle, but when it comes at a time when they need votes, I cannot help but be skeptical of what is truly in their hearts.
But if you're only thinking short term (caucuses and primaries), it is.
He can always change his views if he becomes the nominee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.