Wile E. Coyote
New member
Like you Eeset. I'll neg rep. I'll neg rep not. I'll neg rep. I'll neg rep not.... :chuckle:
toldailytopic: Is Mitt Romney pro-life?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
TruthSetsFree
New member
um... u r wrong
the Catholic Church's position is the same as the last sentence in your post
more disininformation about the RCC... ho hum... same old same old
I don't believe so but in the Obama Care program it is a done deal.
If only people knew the real roots of abortion they would be much more informed. Abortion paid for by government is the "end all" for this sick mindset.
Last edited:
Your ability to discern is that of an intern.
With a little less hair and something approaching warmth or humour in his eyes ol' Mitty would be a spit for Bob Hope.
What's your interest "britty" ?
Buzz
New member
If it is as simple as this video makes it sound, how hard would it be to come to some kind of consensus on someone who is far less evil than the two choices we have?
| Too late for this now? | |
Right, and your cloaked answer is worth something?
drbrumley
Well-known member
Just seems to me, we had the candidate, and the republicans lied and cheated and were thugs against the only one who would have done something about abortion.
Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty
Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.
The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.
A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.
Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.
We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.
I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them.
Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty
Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.
The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.
A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.
Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.
We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.
I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them.
Yeah, I suppose they will get more money/rulings from obama and the dems than romney and the republicans, even if the two guys are basically the same on it.
drbrumley
Well-known member
I believe so too.
Check out these quotes from Romney, with dates:
2002: "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose. I am not going to change our pro-choice laws in Massachusetts in any way. I am not going to make any changes which would make it more difficult for a woman to make that choice herself."
2005: 'I Am Pro-Life'
2007: 'We Should Overturn Roe v. Wade'
2011: 'I Will Support Efforts to Prohibit Federal Funding for Any Organization Like Planned Parenthood'
2012: 'There's No Legislation With Regards to Abortion That I'm Familiar With That Would Become Part of My Agenda'
Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mitt...cting-comments/story?id=14805513#.UHXxJRh5E1I
2002: "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose. I am not going to change our pro-choice laws in Massachusetts in any way. I am not going to make any changes which would make it more difficult for a woman to make that choice herself."
2005: 'I Am Pro-Life'
2007: 'We Should Overturn Roe v. Wade'
2011: 'I Will Support Efforts to Prohibit Federal Funding for Any Organization Like Planned Parenthood'
2012: 'There's No Legislation With Regards to Abortion That I'm Familiar With That Would Become Part of My Agenda'
Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mitt...cting-comments/story?id=14805513#.UHXxJRh5E1I
Here’s what we found:
Abortion: Romneycare enables people to purchase plans that include abortion coverage. Obamacare does as well, but it also lets states opt out and lets individuals buy plans that don’t cover the procedure.
Illegal immigrants: Romneycare’s Health Safety Net reimburses health providers who care for the poor, regardless of whether they’re in the country legally. Obamacare provides grants to community health centers, which also treat anyone who can’t afford to pay for health care. Neither law provides any form of insurance coverage to undocumented people.
Public option: Neither plan has a public option in which the government acts as the insurer.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ok-post-compares-elements-romneycare-obamaca/
Surprise.
And what is Romney saying?
That he will not make it "easier" to choose abortion. Unlike Obama who could care less.
barbarian is a shill for the democratic party
and
that is an easy thing to do here at TOL
and
that is an easy thing to do here at TOL
Aint that the truth.
A lot easier to say that then to respond to his points about your guy, isn't it...(rhetorical, because really, nearly every question asked you might as well be).
lain: