Mitt Romney is pro abortion in his actions as governor of Massachusetts in implementing both public funding for it and forcing the people of Massachusetts to pay for it. I'm aware that Mitt Romney is saying he'd eliminate planned parenthood, but before that he was saying he was the rational one on the women's rights issue. He'll say whatever he believes helps him for political expediency.
Because he didn't do so in MA. The Republican Party in MA is not the same as the Republican Party nationally. They are quite used to running pro-abortion candidates because they aren't used to winning.
I should ask of you the same question. Why are you so determined to win on technicalities, but lose on points? Nominating Romney, even in the event that he does win is an enormous loss. It does us no good to remove Obama if we are installing someone who believes in the exact same things. [/quote]
I'm not trying to win on technicalities; you're the one who wants to do that. The only way to win on the issue is to overturn
Roe v. Wade. The only way to do that is to have a Supreme Court willing to. The only way to get that is having a president who will appoint pro-life justices. That is not a technicality; it
is the main point. Things like parental consent laws and vaginal ultrasounds are technicalities. When you try to achieve an objective, the correct way to approach it is to do whatever gives you the highest probability of achieving it. President Obama gives you zero chance.
Any Republican will give you a better chance than him simply because a Republican will appoint other Republicans, some of whom are probably pro-life.
Yes, there is. [/quote]
President Obama voted against a law while in the Illinois State Legislature that forbid the killing of babies who survived botched abortions. Mitt Romney would never have supported that. They are different. If you take "pro-life" to mean banning abortion under all circumstances then nowhere near 50% of the US is pro-life. About half the country considers themselves pro-life because they interpret "pro-life" as wanting to give life a chance in some vague general sense. In real life, people don't always take positions for ideological consistency. There are people out there who believe just about every position imaginable.
You are arguing I should vote for Mitt and see what I get? No thanks. I'll go get a hamburger from the Mickey D's. At least I know what I'll be getting.
[/quote][/quote]
That is a completely illogical statement. You are trying to make a decision based on emotion rather than doing what has the best chance of giving you the right result. By doing so, you will only guarantee the worst result possible. Get ready for four more years of President Obama forcing the Catholic Church to do whatever he wants it to do.