Man dingo donger?

as long as ittl eat a baybee

But the states don't.
And more importantly, they can't.

Bottom line: Does anyone HONESTLY think that Romney would push to overturn Roe v Wade?

Because if you don't, then the point is moot. Abortion isn't really an issue in this election. So tell me why it should matter when choosing a candidate?


I guess you could vote against Romney because he wants to stop funding Planned Parenthood and their Frequent Abortion Club bonus programs.
But that's another discussion altogether.

[frypan]

basically, I understand and agree that presidential votes should not hinge on personal views relating to abortion rights. but the appointment of supreme court justices may change that thinking depending on the voters' views.

That, of course, is the first argument you hear from the pro abortion crowd.
Do you honestly think that Romney will want to, and be able to, appoint one or more SCJ that is willing to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I find it difficult to believe that anyone thinks this is likely or even possible. Hence my comments.
I should perhaps temper my opinions because I guess people can believe anything if they want to. Or are convinced to. Agendas are powerful things, on both sides.

Pro choice, actually, and what I think is that many voters on both sides believe that there is always a possibility of an appointment making it through. Personally, I think you are correct, it is very unlikely to happen and moves to the back burner...but there are millions of ardent pro-life (anti-choice?)who have made this the most important issue in their lives and want badly to believe, realism aside,...even at the expense of the rest of the world's problems.

For the record, though my wife and I could never choose abortion, we would not push to make our very personal feelings the law, hence pro-choice, and also why I refuse to be labeled pro abortion. It does not aid the cause.

Abortion really is a wedge issue. Any many will vote because of it alone.

It is also a great example of every Americans right to freedom from religion – since those who would impose their values on everyone by making abortions illegal are doing it on purely religious grounds by calling it murder.

You don't have to believe in God to think taking a life is murder.

But I completely agree with your first paragraph. Politicians count on wedge issues to stay entrenched in power.

True, but by and large the crowd that call the morning after pill or even first trimester abortions murder are not doing so by point of scientific fact - It is the convictions and values of their religious beliefs. Unless they a really protesting the ‘murder’ of a seed (which is not the case). They see the beginnings of life as the end state; a human – with a sole. This is inference, not fact.

For the record, a developed fetus in the third trimester generally can sustain its own life and likely is cognizant – therefore murder takes a basis in fact. And I think all agree that this is morally wrong.

I try to remember that when people call all abortion murder, they feel they are doing the right thing. Of course the road to hell is not just paved with good intention, it is also well lit.

^ I largely agree. But I don't think it's all religious.

My ex wife and I took the morning after pill once (we were married at the time ) the guilt we both felt wasn't religious based it was in our hearts.

This I can understand. Any type of abortion is a dreadful thing.

I'm also in NICU all the time so maybe that and being a dad biases me.

I think its like that old saying "I know pornography when I see it".

I'm amazed and pleased to see some serious exchanges taking place on a nuclear topic while maintaining respect.

switching back to the heart of the op, I have seen Romney up close when he dropped in on Massachusetts during his insatiable tour of routes to the White House. He will say anything, anything, to get what he wants. He will portray himself as a true centrist to win in MA, he has claimed to be "a severely conservative man" not too many years later just a few months ago, he is already trying to soften and harden that stance depending on the audience and or what polls say voters want du jour...I am totally uncomfortable having him as the option when I have absolutely no idea what he really believes in other than satisfying his gigantic ego. And for Mitt, his true position on abortion will never be known. But no matter what you may think he is saying now, wait a minute, he will contradict it if it means votes. He brings new meaning to the term flip flop, no one is a close second.

I understand disliking, even hating the position and convictions of candidates on "the other side" of one's belief system, but this guy has no positions nor convictions that he means. He is a calculating chameleon, self serving untrustworthy waffler, and anyone buying he may advance their goals relating to legal abortion, good luck. You're mistaking him for a man of morals who conned you out of your vote.

To sum it up, I'm not surprised he has "changed" his stance on abortion, but can you really change opinions if you have none?

The Kaw driver wins the point.



Back to the OP - as a Liberal Democrat I have a admittedly colored opinion of Romney and his platform; He is a mouth pieced for the concerns of big business and ruling class that own the country. He will take any stance required to get elected. And once in office he will deregulate his friends and their business concerns, pander the religious right to allow greater government control, and start another war purely for the money. In short he will take care of number one, ‘and number one ain’t you. You ain’t even number two.’.

Just say'n

^ I think BHO & Mittens will both take us to war

And not a defense so to speak, but I would much rather the private sector pick winners and looser rather than the govt. I think he (Romney) wanted this so bad he will do what the folks that really got him over the final hump expect.

Frank,
I know what we have with Obama, and even though what you say about Romney may be absolutely true, I'd rather take my chances with him. We just can't afford 4 more years of Obama. I personally don't like Romney one bit, but I'm ready for some Hope and CHANGE, baby, hope and CHANGE.

I get that, I really do. But Obama can be neutralized with a hostile congress as we have seen.

Sometimes the devil you know...

and I appreciate having a conversation rather than being attacked. Too bad the government can't do this.

Today I read the theory that Romney is really a machine, covered by living tissue, sent back from the future to raise Sarah Conner’s taxes.

LMAO! (^)

Rick which candidate has paid more $'s in taxed lifetime? I don't know but I suspect the droid did.

No warmth towards another human? I don't like him but suspect he's far more likely to help someone when he doesn't have to and no cameras are rolling than Barry and especially Biden. Those two aren't exactly "charitable".