Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Both parties are too extreme on abortion
Boston Globe ^ | August 26, 2012 | JEFF JACOBY

Posted on 09/01/2012 1:13:56 PM PDT by presidio9

When it comes to abortion, which political party’s views are more extreme?

Unless you’ve spent the past week as a stowaway on NASA’s new Mars rover, the approved media answer is obvious: Republicans are the abortion fanatics. Between the furor over Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” gaffe and the GOP platform language calling for a constitutional amendment to undo Roe v. Wade, the Republicans have revealed themselves to be — as The New York Times editorialized on

(Excerpt) Read more at articles.boston.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; prochoice; prolife; republicanplatform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last
I don't usually do this, but in this case I highly recommend clicking on and reading the entire article.

Liberal conjecture about the "Republican" postion on abortion, the RNC is not running for president, Mitt Romney is. Governor Romney has been quite clear that he favors outlawing abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother, a position shared by 75% of Americans. As a Catholic, I sympathize with women who were victims of sexual predators, but I am also concerned for the innocent unborn. As these cases represent less than 2% of all pregnacies (though admittedly that number would go up if they were the exceptions), I wonder how many lives might be saved if the GOP would stipulate.

During the convention, I witnessed CNN eunuch mistate Romney's postion multiple times. I believe he did so delibrately, and was apalled that a respected news organization did nothing to correct him.

1 posted on 09/01/2012 1:13:59 PM PDT by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Murdering helpless human beings seems extreme to me. Just sayin’.


2 posted on 09/01/2012 1:22:53 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
This week August 27 (CBS News) In an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, Mitt Romney said his views on abortion rights are more lenient than those put forward in the Republican party platform.
3 posted on 09/01/2012 1:29:57 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

No. The Republican position on abortion has been consistent since before we all were born.Now we are extreme?It is the other side who has in the last 50 years moved further and further in a direction that minimizes human life.Abortion is just one area where that is true.


4 posted on 09/01/2012 1:31:09 PM PDT by rsobin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Romney’s exception exempt’s not one single female in the world.


5 posted on 09/01/2012 1:32:53 PM PDT by fastkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

*“My position has been the same throughout my political career, and it goes back to the days of 1970,” he said. “There was a woman who was running for political office, U.S. Senate. She took a very bold and courageous stand in 1970, and that was in a conservative state. That was that a woman should have the right to make her own choice as to whether or not to have an abortion. Her name was Lenore Romney, she was my mom. Even though she lost, she established a record of courage in that regard.”*

The courage that he says she instilled may have been what enabled Mitt Romney to announce this week that he was returning to his pro-abortion position, and was never anything but, and to say with a straight face, that he had openly campaigned as a ‘health of mother’ abortion advocate.


6 posted on 09/01/2012 1:32:53 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fastkelly
Romney’s exception exempt’s not one single female in the world.

Please explain your comment. Thanks.

7 posted on 09/01/2012 1:34:50 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Good read. Thanks for the post.


8 posted on 09/01/2012 1:36:58 PM PDT by LuvFreeRepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

How would they feel if they were the ones aborted?

Why is it OK for bullies to kill innocent babies?


9 posted on 09/01/2012 1:38:01 PM PDT by ADSUM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: presidio9

Stress over being pregnant is a mental health exemption.


11 posted on 09/01/2012 1:39:04 PM PDT by fastkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Murdering helpless human beings seems extreme to me. Just sayin’.

This is the first and last time I will partake in the abortion discussion. At a very premature stage the Dr. and I had a discussion. Short version: "We take the baby your wife might live. We don't take the baby, they both will die. You need to decide, tonight." To all you absolute, no exception types, live it before you preach it.

12 posted on 09/01/2012 1:40:18 PM PDT by bobzeetwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fastkelly

oops. Exemption = inclusion


13 posted on 09/01/2012 1:43:00 PM PDT by fastkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Your quote is from 1994. Using the same time scale requirements, you and I could never have voted for Governor Reagan in 1980. My personal view is that I trust Governor Romney about as far as I can throw him, but I am POSITVE that if Obama wins a second term he will add at least one pro partial birth infanticide Justice to the SCOTUS to replace a nominal Conservative.

I favor outlawing ALL abortions, but I realize that the lives saved on ANY ban with politically attractive concesions would number in the millions.

14 posted on 09/01/2012 1:46:00 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

While i think it is extreme to demand that a woman carry her rapists baby, most republicans don’t agree with that as a policy. It’s not even close.
However, MOST democrats agree with absolutely no limits right till delivery. And the psychopath Obama even ENTHUSIASTICALLY supports killing the ones who have successfully been delivered despite the attempt to kill them.

To show how extreme the US Democrat party has become, consider this. What on earth is more radical than a Swedish feminist? Here is the current law in Sweden that their feminists are happy with.

” The current legislation is the Abortion Act of 1974 (SFS 1974:595). This states that up until the end of the eighteenth week of the pregnancy the choice of an abortion is entirely up to the woman, for any reason whatsoever. After the 18th and until the 22nd week a woman needs a permission from the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) to have an abortion. Permission for these late abortions is usually granted for cases in which the fetus or mother are unhealthy.”

If we tried to pass this here, the Dems would utterly freak out. They are orders of magnitude more radical than a Swedish feminist.


15 posted on 09/01/2012 1:46:30 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobzeetwin

I believe doctors gave the same option to Tim Tehow’s mother.


16 posted on 09/01/2012 1:47:49 PM PDT by fastkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bobzeetwin
To all you absolute, no exception types, live it before you preach it.

Been there, done that. Made the right choice. You are not special.

17 posted on 09/01/2012 1:47:54 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bobzeetwin

My wife and I were in almost exactly the same position. That is an exception required by human decency. Where to draw the line is a different question, but there are times when that heartbreaking choice makes sense.


18 posted on 09/01/2012 1:50:24 PM PDT by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
55 million babies murdered in America since 1973 and we're supposed to be the extremists? The Left employs Orwellian mendacity with language. May the Lord save us from the evil of these miscreants and their death-centered agenda!



Genuflectimus non ad principem sed ad Principem Pacis!

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

19 posted on 09/01/2012 1:51:00 PM PDT by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Michael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

So did I. But we both made the choice, not someone else.


20 posted on 09/01/2012 1:52:07 PM PDT by bobzeetwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
There are 2 things in that post, one, which has nothing to with any date, is Mitt Romney praising his mother's political courage. That never expires.

*“My position has been the same throughout my political career, and it goes back to the days of 1970,” he said. “There was a woman who was running for political office, U.S. Senate. She took a very bold and courageous stand in 1970, and that was in a conservative state. That was that a woman should have the right to make her own choice as to whether or not to have an abortion. Her name was Lenore Romney, she was my mom. Even though she lost, she established a record of courage in that regard.”*

The other only happened five days ago.

Five days ago Mitt Romney formally changed his abortion position to “health of the mother’, which is a euphemism for ‘abortion on demand’.

21 posted on 09/01/2012 1:52:21 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bobzeetwin
So did I. But we both made the choice, not someone else.

Not so fast. There were two human lives involved here. Yours was not one of them. One of died and had no say in the matter. That being said, even the Catholic Church permits abortions under the circumstances you described, so, no you really haven't walked the walk.

22 posted on 09/01/2012 1:57:35 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

At one time some in the media claimed that both parties were extreme on slavery. But then right and wrong are the extremes of any issue.


23 posted on 09/01/2012 1:59:09 PM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah, so shall it be again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobzeetwin
I doubt that you will discuss anything but, here goes...

"Abortion" for the life of the mother was legal in all 50 states before Roe v. Wade. I put "abortion" in quotes in that sentence because the procedure you describe is not considered an abortion in medical terms. When a pregnancy becomes a threat to the mother's life the doctors will do everything they can to save both lives.

If the fetus is too young to save by any method then the medical battle for its life is already lost and the doctors won't waste time trying to do what they cannot do. That doesn't in any way imply that they made a moral or ethical decision to favor the mother's life over the baby's life. It's a simple recognition of the technical realities of medicine.

If the fetus is old enough to potentially save then the ethical dilemma is reduced to that of any triage situation. It is hoped that both patients can be saved but if time and technical abilities create limits that proscribe any reasonable chance of saving both patients then the one with the best chance of survival is the one they focus on. That would almost always be the mother.

Your emotional reaction precluded you from asking me if my view included "life of the mother" and it obstructed your mind from understanding that such an operation is not even considered and abortion in medical terms. In an abortion there is never any intention to save the baby. The very purpose of abortion in the first place is to kill the baby. The baby is never considered a patient in an abortion.

24 posted on 09/01/2012 2:00:58 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Five days ago Mitt Romney formally changed his abortion position to “health of the mother’, which is a euphemism for ‘abortion on demand’.

Ansell, God bless you, but the way politics works is that nobody ever gets EVERYTHING they want (except for the Obama Adminstration). Slavery existed in this country with a sizable percentage of the population opposed to it for over a century. If the choice is all or nothing, I choose something.

25 posted on 09/01/2012 2:03:01 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I have not followed this debate until akin muttered his ignorance so I may have missed the debate over how the funding
for raising all these new members of society will be handled. Once the mandate that all birth control be eliminated
is in place, what tax mechanism will be used?


26 posted on 09/01/2012 2:13:58 PM PDT by soycd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
so, no you really haven't walked the walk.

You don't know what decision was made, nor do you know the result. You assume I made the wrong decision. You assume you would have done differently. You assume my wife was cognitive. You are why I don't get into this with people, because you already think you are right and I am wrong and you don't even know what happened. You think your opinions are absolute. I was forced to decide. The nasty details you want are this: "either one dies, or both die. You decide." STFU A hole. I hope you or your children never have to "walk the walk." It brings tears 30 yrs later.

27 posted on 09/01/2012 2:15:49 PM PDT by bobzeetwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

That’s it, a dismissive wave of the hand?

Your candidate just reverted back to his pro-abortion position five days ago, and your reaction is... nothing? A mere ‘let’s get past that’, and a mocking condescension at the poor soul who thinks it important?


28 posted on 09/01/2012 2:15:49 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; All
Republican's problem, as Michelle Bachmann countered in the primary debates, is the media question is always framed on the extremes of rape, incest and life of the mother--the edge cases--rather than the 98%/99% of abortion as birth control.

The Left advocates abortion any time, any place, any where in any way. Medical care for babies born alive in botched abortions? Too extreme; it might live. Giving birth feet first, stabbing the back of the skull, evacuating brains and collapsing the cranium? Not extreme; the baby dies.

Well, you all get the picture. They wrap it up in a pretty pink bow as freedom, as reproductive rights, but they don't explain that it means in the real world nor will they allow anyone to inform these women of the details. It's too ghastly, too extreme, too hurtful to inform them, to educate.

Any women describing herself as pro-choice attaches her character, provides her imprimatur, to the whole abortion machine.

Notice we never hear about pro-choicers saying "except in cases of late term," or this procedure or that caveat. It's always framed as I let the woman decide; it's not up to me to offer any conditions, to think, to reflect... 'lalala I can't hear you' or 'Leave my body alone you extremist!'

29 posted on 09/01/2012 2:18:14 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Election night is 65 days away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
the health of the mother

Come on, just tell the truth.

60 million babies have been aborted for the "health of the mother".

That's pro-abortion.

30 posted on 09/01/2012 2:21:52 PM PDT by donna (This is what happens when America is no longer a Christian nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Accepting a simple wording change, where 'abortion on demand' is replaced with the phrase 'for the health (including mental health) of the mother' which phrase is understood to mean the exact same thing as 'abortion on demand', means you get nothing.

The way left-right politics work, the right must make compromises only for very tightly worded exceptions to what they want, rather than accepting and declaring victory with a euphemism that is cover for giving the left what they want.

We'll saw this kind of 'success' with Boehner's boner of a compromise on the debt problem. I'm not sure how many more such 'victories' my retirement nest egg can handle. And I'm getting worried about whether 'Repeal and Replace' means replacing ObamaCare with RomneyCare.

31 posted on 09/01/2012 2:29:40 PM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: soycd

It’s strange that you gave Zer0 consideration to a private sector solution.


32 posted on 09/01/2012 2:32:06 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Both parties are too extreme on abortion

Quite right. Both parties ARE, extremist -- pro-choice extremists, to be exact. The difference is that one party is honest about it, while the other lies.

33 posted on 09/01/2012 2:36:27 PM PDT by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soycd

You are pro-abortion because you fear that new people might become a burden like public transportation costs?


34 posted on 09/01/2012 2:42:16 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bobzeetwin
You think your opinions are absolute

Actually, I am merely re-stating God's opinions. As another poster to this thread pointed out, your decision was either not an abortion at all, and therefore not relevant to this thread and (presumbly) posted for vanity purposes, or allowable by all religions and therefore, painful but essentially moral and also not relevant to this thread. I sympathize with your situation, but I can't help wondering what, exactly, is your game here?

35 posted on 09/01/2012 2:49:02 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: soycd
I have not followed this debate until akin muttered his ignorance so I may have missed the debate over how the funding for raising all these new members of society will be handled. Once the mandate that all birth control be eliminated is in place, what tax mechanism will be used?

How about private charity, orphanages, and they innate protectiveness that (most of) society has for newborns, same as it was before Roe. Checked the waiting lists for healthy newborn adoptions lately?

36 posted on 09/01/2012 2:51:16 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: soycd
how the funding for raising all these new members of society will be handled.

We seem to be able to find funding for all sorts of other projects that don't pay off till years later.

Human life creates wealth, not poverty. The economic stagnation of Europe and Japan (and increasingly in the USA) is the result of disproportionately aging populations that aren't being succeeded by new generations of young producers and consumers. Investment capital in the hands of the old has no place to go. Tax revenues are inadequate to meet needs because worldwide billions of people have been prevented from being born. This is why socialized health care increasingly pushes euthanasia as a way to dodge social security and health care costs of the elderly

37 posted on 09/01/2012 2:56:37 PM PDT by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; donna

I respect both of your views on the issue, and share them on a personal level. But I am talking political reality here. When Roe is repealed, it is going to be addressed on the state level. And that is going to happen either through an ammendment, or a new SCOTUS decision. In either case, godless states like the one I live in are most likely going to have more liberal abortion laws, while others are going to restrict it in all cases. In either case, distracting from the main argument with absolutes is not helpful to the eventual goal, which is establishing a new normal of limited abortions and letting society rediscover that the world will not end when that happens.


38 posted on 09/01/2012 2:57:49 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
This caught my eye near the end of the column.

In 2000, the Democratic platform said the party’s goal was “to make abortion less necessary and more rare.”

If abortion is a right like the others in our Constitution, why work to make it rare?

We are almost forty years since Roe and the people of America are still sharply divided. What other "right" stirs so much opposition? None.

The despicable Roe court even abused a treasure, our Ninth Amendment, to justify unlimited murder.

39 posted on 09/01/2012 2:58:27 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Exterminate rats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bobzeetwin
I think you've misread the comment. Suggesting you've not "walked the walk" they are simply saying the circumstance you described is not considered abortion.

"One will die or both" is not akin to the child is killed for reasons amounting to inconvenience, the foundation of abortion. You weren't given a "choice" over the child's long life or sure death as with abortion. You were told, with medical certainty, your child would die--period, but that your wife might live.

It's a bright line distinction that Alan Keyes eloquently expressed in a "gotcha" question during the 2000 primary debates.

I'm sorry you had that experience. No matter the outcome, a life long struggle with grief results.

Some on the pro-life side don't recognize their own misconceptions and emotionalism over careful consideration. In fact "life of the mother" should never really be pulled into the abortion topic since, when it really is that case, it isn't a question of abortion but whether two die or one. Where's the choice?

In cases of rape, incest, financial burden, selective reduction, disinterest in parenting, the whole host of abortion circumstances, there is a life or death choice made over the child. In your circumstances, that choice did not exist because death was a certainty.

In these other cases, the baby would otherwise come to term normally and live its own life. It exists or doesn't on a whim.

40 posted on 09/01/2012 3:00:47 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Election night is 65 days away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I’m sorry but I don’t understand your point.

Mitt just spit in our face by saying 1.3 million abortions per year is okay with him.

There’s your extreme problem.


41 posted on 09/01/2012 3:01:55 PM PDT by donna (This is what happens when America is no longer a Christian nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
what, exactly, is your game here?

No game. I know better than to get into this. As I stated, it is the first time and last time I enter the abortion discussion. I will continue to disrupt family functions with my fiscal, immigrant, defense, and marriage stances. (which are most likely the same as yours)

42 posted on 09/01/2012 3:03:06 PM PDT by bobzeetwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; bobzeetwin
There are a few things that don't ring true about bobzeetwin's posts.

At a very premature stage the Dr. and I had a discussion.

"...We don't take the baby, they both will die. ..."

If the pregnancy was in a very premature stage the doctor never would have presented the "one or the other will die" choice. The only choice would be 'one lives (the mother) or both die' and no doctor would offer that choice.

Even in a late term pregnancy it is highly unlikely that a doctor would present the "one or the other will die" choice. Not without a serious discussion about probable outcomes for both patients and the relative chances of each of them. Such a situation would be extremely rare to begin with.

He also contradicts himself when he tells you...

You assume my wife was cognitive.

That's not an assumption when he had already said...

But we both made the choice,...

Things don't add up very well there.

43 posted on 09/01/2012 3:04:39 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: bobzeetwin
I don't intend to draw you into a discussion in which you already said you'd decline to paticipate, but if anybody else islurking and reading, I'll say this:

I know of no case of classic life-of-the-mother situations (cancer of the uterus or cervix, ectopic prgnancy, pregnant woman hemorrhaging because of traums ---e.g. car accident--- where it was ever morally or legally considered an "abortion" if therapeutic measures were taken to save the mother's life --- even if it was clearly understood that the unborn baby would die.

"Therapeutic measures" could include surgery, drugs, chemo, radiation, hysterectomy, very premature delivery with no practical expectation of the baby's viability.

I say this because even in places and at times when the law in theory prohibited abortion, such laws have never prohibited or penalized actual lifesaving intervention to prevent the mother's death.

If anyone knows of any such procedure was ruled out because of the "absolute" laws in any state at any time in U.S. history, let me know. I don't know of any. I think that legally, it's a non-issue.

44 posted on 09/01/2012 3:09:40 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
In 2000, the Democratic platform said the party’s goal was “to make abortion less necessary and more rare.”

Democrats have a hard time reconciling their logic on anything but one wonders just what they consider to be "necessary abortions.!?!"

Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing

· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby

· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child

· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)

· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career

· 7.9% of women want no (more) children

· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health

2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?

Less than 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.


45 posted on 09/01/2012 3:09:40 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I respect both of your views on the issue, and share them on a personal level.

LOL, Alright Ted Kennedy/Mitt Romney, got ya.

46 posted on 09/01/2012 3:16:03 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

“Murdering helpless human beings seems extreme to me. Just sayin’.”

You got my vote!


47 posted on 09/01/2012 3:16:42 PM PDT by BwanaNdege (Man has often lost his way, but modern man has lost his address - Gilbert K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BwanaNdege
I'm running on the More Sex, Less Murder platform.

I think I'm going to have to form my own party though. ;^)

48 posted on 09/01/2012 3:19:28 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: donna
Mitt just spit in our face by saying 1.3 million abortions per year is okay with him.

Again, I think that you are ignoring political realities here, and the powers outlined in the Constitution. If YOU were elected president tomorrow, nothing would change on the abortion front for the forseeable future. The bottom line is we (pro-lifers, not Republicans) need control of bother houses AND the executive branch for the chance at any change in the status quo. "I'm more pro-life than you" pissing contests accomplish nothing. The most likely first step involves a return to state by state decisions on this subject.

49 posted on 09/01/2012 3:21:15 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: bobzeetwin
No game. I know better than to get into this. As I stated, it is the first time and last time I enter the abortion discussion. I will continue to disrupt family functions with my fiscal, immigrant, defense, and marriage stances. (which are most likely the same as yours)

You are being very cryptic, and I think that's why several people (not just myself) have problems with your post. The more productive use of this forum would be for you to FIRST state your current position on abortion. From what you have said, I'm guessing that it has something to do with an exception for early term pregnancies where the baby's life is beyond saving. In which case, the good news is that even though this is not directly provided for in the Republican position, it is implied, because medical practice does not consider such procedures abortions in the first place.

The problem with what you have said so far is that there are inconsistencies to your story, and instead of clarifying, you have chosen to assume the moral high ground and disgregard anyone else's opinion. Can you see how that would rub people the wrong way?

50 posted on 09/01/2012 3:27:54 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson