Posted on 05/19/2012 7:15:24 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
So?
Yes, you’re wrong. It doesn’t just prevent conception. It prevents implantation in the uterus.
Which means it is also an abortifacient.
This is the moral equivalent of locking your two year-old outside in a snowbank in twenty below weather with no clothes on, and no food or water.
There’s no difference except stage of human development. Both individuals are fully human persons.
Perhaps I took it the wrong way, as I stated in other post we are in agreement that Romney is a terrible candidate to back, but is the last man standing.
There is a chance he MIGHT appoint a Conservative, I am taking this last chance. People have piled on me for daring to say I would hold my nose 1 more time, I had thought your long post was of the same mind, I apologize if I read it wrong!
What part pf free enterprise do you not understand ?
If Romney is “bad” we are all “bad” .....at least those who live in the real worldall live in the real world
If you dont like those drugs Change the laws
After Obama is defeated this fall, I would seriously consider a hard turn to a “conservative” third party. Republicans “playing” musical chairs with communists every 2, 4, 6, or 8 years is not my idea of sane governance. You have but to look to California to envision the future of the nation otherwise.
Do you worry about the poor sperm that die everyday knowing only the comfort of a cold sheet?
Indeed, you are right. My heart just hurts for our country. :(
OMG! I just realized I’m the most evil person in the world. /s
So, you were setting the odds concerning the Supreme Court appointments of the two evil men who may gain the largest share of votes this November and I asked you what do you think are the odds that Romney might try to appoint a Mormon.
So, what are the odds that Romney might try to appoint a Mormon?
If you don’t know, just say so.
ARGGGGGH!
*Chasing you with a big stick* :)
That's because they are "cheezy".
No problem, my FRiend!
We ARE in full agreement!
The point being that some here have said that Romney was running as a conservative only during the primaries, but that during the general election campaign he would change his positions. If that were so, now that he has the nomination effectively wrapped up, then why is he still putting out a conservative platform? Do you think you would find statements at Obama’s website saying that he will nominate justices like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito? Do you think at Obama’s website you will find him saying that he wants to have Roe v. Wade overturned? Some here say that there is no difference between Obama and Romney. Well, I find these to be huge differences.
There’s more chance of JimRob becoming Romney’s campaign manager than there is of convincing a majority of the US population that a fertilized egg is a person.
80% of fertilized eggs/embryos fail to implant naturally (without the mother ever knowing) What exactly is the point of God killing so many “persons” that way?
LOL, I'm a mass murderer....if you put it that way.
You miss the point. Teva also makes hundreds of good medications. One of them is glimepiride, which I take for diabetes. I know that the “Hate Romney” faction here will do anything to put Obama back into office for another 4 years, but this connection is ridiculous. In case, you didn’t know it, Obama is very pro-abortion, right up until the moment of birth (and beyond if the first abortion attempt failed).
Oh, so they give life and kill.......well that makes it OK then..sarc/
Well, who could win a Massachusetts gubernatorial post minus Democratic-like credentials?
Always been a pro-abort? Yup. Here's the evidence:
| YEAR | Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney | Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life' |
| Bottom-Line Summary: ANN Romney Lies Thru Her Teeth | Ann Romney, 1994: Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (Ann Romney’s Planned Parenthood Donation | Ann Romney, 2011: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side) |
| Bottom-Line Summary: Mitt Romney Lies Thru His Teeth | “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) + ...”my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007) | So, not only does Ann Romney tell Parade Magazine November 2011 that they've “never changed” re: abortion and that they've “always been pro-life,” but Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace part-way through their 2007 campaign that: “I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice”...This was seven months after he said in January 2007 that he was “always for life.” |
| Romney, goin' back to 1970 when Romney's Mom ran for Senate | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) | "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?" |
| 1994 (Campaign) | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support – “sustain” ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word “sustain” for support for their own “prophet” | Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007) |
| 1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001 | (a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/ann-romneys-planned-parenthood-donation/">Ann Romney’s Planned Parenthood Donation (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: "Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; "Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; "In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts | 2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?) |
| 2002-2004 | “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again? | Nov. '04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?) |
| 2005 | May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04! | What about his gubernatorial record '03-'06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in '05 some 'pro-life' decisions. "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an '02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, '05 press conference commitment as well. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine |
| 2006 | April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details). | "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates |
| Early 2007 | On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true? | Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life! |
| Summer 2007 | "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?" | Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer? |
| December 2007 vs. November 2011 (Pro-treating offspring as research refuse late in previous POTUS campaign vs. now claiming 'never changed...always pro-life' | December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!" | In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side) |
>>If you don’t know, just say so.<<
I did just say “so”.
Let’s say that Romney will appoint a Mormon. So?
What are the odds that Obama will appoint a Muslim loving, Israeli hater, like himself?
So let's unwrap his statements a bit:
Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view.
If life begins at conception, which it does, the supreme law of the land does reflect that view, explicitly and imperatively, and without exception.
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
Even Blackmun admitted as much in Roe, before he and his colleagues dehumanized the child.
"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." -- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973
What Romney is referring to as "law" isn't "law" at all. It is court opinions. You see, he is a judicial supremacist. Pro-choice for judges. Denies the sacred duty of the officers of the other branches to support and defend and uphold their own oaths.
But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade –
Judicial supremacist and de facto support for the status quo, which is abortion on demand.
a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges.
Pro-choice democrat denial that the right to life is God-given and therefore unalienable...ie beyond legitimate human choice.
With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."
Pro-choice for states. Pro-choice democrat.
Does it matter? Both obomba and romney will promise everybody what they want to hear and then do as they damn well please. Their records bear this out and if you're an honest person you will admit that and stop trying to convince us that romney is worthy of our vote. I cannot be bought and it insults me that romney thinks he can buy my vote. There are millions of conservatives that do not call themselves Republicans that had no say in our primaries who... because of all romney's attack ads forced good conservative candidates out of the election. In his excessive spending spree to force himself upon American conservatives he's sold our nation into the annals of history. A history that will put us on par with Atlantis. A mythological continent of super people with out of this world technology.
Atlantis is no more and it's argued, never existed. The US is headed down that same path to oblivion. A nation that will only exist in the dreams and hopes of the oppressed.
This is what spineless cowards are hoisting upon the rest of us. People that are afraid to stand up for what's right because they're afraid to lose "their" little freebees is what's wrong with, and destroying this nation. We must slice our federal government by no less than 75%, instil a flat tax across the board of no more than 15% both state and federal included and abolish most major federal agencies i.e. EPA, Department of education, NEA, DHS (and all it's subsidiaries), The US Forest Service, US Postal Service,... Romney nor obomba is willing to do any of this and for this reason I am not interested in voting for either and I won't.
And why did you ping me? ... When I asked that you not ping me, I meant don’t ping me. What part of that did you misunderstand?
The word is foisting not hoisting. Don’t they teach you how to use proper wording at Wetboro Baptist?
The truth isn't determined by a majority vote. And the truth is that what you euphemistically call a "fertilized egg" is a person, no matter what you or anyone else thinks about it. Unique DNA and everything.
What exactly is the point of God killing so many “persons” that way?
I don't know. Why don't you ask Him?
Has God told you personally yet just when it is that the human spirit joins the newly conceived life? I’m sure you will be His first one to be informed, right?
What are the odds that Obama will appoint a Muslim loving, Israeli hater, like himself?
Okay, so you insist that I assume that Romney will appoint a Mormon and that Obama will appoint a Muslim loving, Israeli hater.
Now, tell me again - why should I want to vote for either of them?
The next step after that would be to try to pass a constitutional amendment against abortion in all states. But that would be a much, much tougher and longer and less likely thing to pull off. The first step, which realistically could be done in the foreseeable future with the right SC appointments, is to overturn Roe v. Wade. Let's start there. Baby steps (pun intended).
If you're not in a given forum, I'll honor your request.
As for me? Don't ping me -- even to respond to this (and since you have a personal "don't ping me" policy...so from here on out...enforce this on yourself)
As for me pinging ANY poster already in a given forum, hey, 'tis an open forum. If you're already in the forum, I'll ping anybody I please already in that forum.
Otherwise, if you don't want to be pinged in a given forum, convert to a lurker status for that forum.
>>so you insist that I assume that Romney<<
I didn’t ‘Insist’ anything.
I said ‘let’s say’.
Thumbing your nose and picking for a fight, my not get you a fight.
I know you have your talking points but perhaps you need to use them on someone else.
“Okay, you don’t care about moral issues, you condemn those who do, And you’re slothful.”
Reminds me of middle school condemnation by association. And the rental properties can be used for drugs, sex, porn, and abuse...
As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
It doesn't matter what Romney does or does NOT say. He is not a conservative and did not govern as one.
I will vote for Virgil Goode and for conservatives downticket. A vote for Virgil is no more wasted than a vote for Romney.
IMO, Mitt doesn't have the chance of a snowball in hell of defeating the Obama machine.
>>And why did you ping me? ... <<
Don’t be surprised if you get some kind of dance about “only in a certain forum” or “you don’t have ‘don’t ping me’ list that I can refer to”
Anti-Mormons and Anti-Catholics can be really obnoxious.
I’m glad I have Killfile and have blocked a ton.
You gave me nothing but a sore thumb, you know.
The Tenth Amendment does not in any way allow the killing of innocent persons, or exclude any officer of government, at any level or in any branch, from their first duty, which is to equally protect the God-given, unalienable rights of the people, starting with the supreme right, the right to live. The Amendment only deals with the legitimate powers of the national and state governments and the people. It does not confer illegitimate powers.
There is no legitimate power to destroy innocent human life. Never has been, never will be.
This principle is the foundation of our form of government and our national claim to liberty.
Ron Paul, echoing Stephen A. Douglass and Gerald R. Ford, has filled millions of Americans’ heads with this nonsense, but it simply isn’t true.
I did have a chance to vote my conscience...finally...in our
very late Texas primary. It felt good!
Romney has a very good and realistic chance of being elected. See the polling numbers, particularly for how bad the incumbent is doing. But Obama could win, too. Right now, five-and-a-half months out, it looks like this election could go either way. I wouldn’t rule out either guy’s chances of winning. I would rule out, though, anyone else’s chances. It’s going to be either Obama or Romney.
Feel free to post anything that supports that romney is NOT a turd. btw... I already know obomba's turd so if that is your proof that romney is not a turd, then, well... you're missing the mark. Romney cannot beat obomba. Ain't going to happen and even if it does he's simply the other horse pulling the same wagon as obomba. Both hate America. Both are for infanticide (don't give me this crap that romney is not. His ACTIONS, not his words, verify this fact.) Both are for big government and nationalized, mandated healthcare (romney's ACTIONS, not his words, verify this fact.) Both support the homosexual agenda (romney's ACTIONS, not his words verify this fact.)
I could go on and on and on and on and... and the rank rhetoric that keeps spewing from the romney camp that he's better than obomba still... well... It just doesn't fly. Sorry.
I don’t like Romney and he was my last choice for the nomination, even behind Ron Paul, but this article is B.S.; and I generally really like the website that published this article.
No reasonable, intelligent, politically astute American is taking seriously the write-in campaign of "presidential candidate" Tom Hoefling. It is a joke and worthy of derision.
What you are advocating would require a constitutional amendment banning abortions in all states. And I would vote for that, if the amendment process ever got that far. But for right now, that process has not even gotten started, and it would take years before it even has the slightest chance of going anywhere. For right now, what is in sight is overturning Roe v. Wade. If we can accomplish that in the next 4-8 years, that would be wonderful.
The Lord lays before us choices and I think He does so to test our commitment to avoid evil. Obama vs. Romney would be just such a test - evil vs. evil.
To choose is to lose! Reject all evil!
And, trust God.
It prevents implantation in the uterus.
*********************************************************
Thank you, I did not know this. Now that I revisit my HS Biology it makes sense. Is there some other medication I am thinking I heard or was told of which actually prevents conception?
Capisca?
No Constitutional Amendment is required to end all abortions. Read the document that really gave birth to the United States - our Declaration of Independence. The right to life is not a product of any constitution or statute. The right to life is a gift of God.
Why? Our Constitution, in two separate Amendments, already absolutely requires the protection of every innocent human person.
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
Let the merchants of death amend the Constitution. The one we have is just fine, if those who take the oath would just keep it.
Of course, they will also have to overturn the nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence, and the natural law, and God's law, as spelled out in Genesis chapter nine and the Ten Commandments.
Good luck with that.
Yeah. The “Pill.”
You need to deal with political reality. That's just not going to happen in the foreseeable future. There were states that permitted abortions prior to Roe v. Wade, and that was in 1973. If we overturn Roe v. Wade, some states will allow abortion. The only way that would be stopped would be by a constitutional amendment, which is a very long process and a remote possibility. I'm not talking about what you or I would like, I'm talking about political reality.
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.