Top two Republican candidates are Pro Choice.

I find it facinating that both Romney and Cain are pro choice and sit at the top of national polls for Republican Presidential Candidate. Sure they can both "SAY" they changed there views to garner votes but deep down they do not believe government should be dictating a womans right to choice in the matter of abortion.

What say you?

In an effort to appeal to moderates and Democrats, the party insiders are really running a hell of a risk in electing Romney on the thought that anyone but Obama can win. It's like Dole and McCain in years past.

If Romney is the guy, and I'm pretty sure he will be, someone will run on a third-party/independent ticket as a "true" conservative nationwide, and gouge him.

For people who vote on abortion (in opposition), it is a life and death issue and they don't compromise. One thing I will promise though: Mitt Romney knows his weakness on the right, and will pick a very conservative VP. I would not at all be surprised to see Bachmann be the choice for just that reason, because the evangelicals and pro-lifers trust her.

But as for the issue of abortion itself, most politicians are pragmatists if they're honest. When in Massachusetts...

reply to post by Xeven

As far as politicians lying about their standing to be elected, that is nothing new.
Back to abortion.
I think abortion should be illegal.
Unless the mother has a good chance of dying.

I'll say this once again, although the liberals and Democrats never understand it.

Pro-Choice is OK.

Funding abortions with our govt tax dollars is NOT ok.

Don't use my money to murder your own babies.

reply to post by Xeven


Clinton discovered something when he was in office. He learned that saying something was as good as doing it. So slick Willy said he was pro choice, but through his actions, severely limited a woman's ability to have an abortion if she so decided.

So yeah, they can talk the talk all they want, but once in office don't expect them to follow through, especially Romney, that guy will say anything if he thinks it will work.

Take whatever politicians say with a ton of salt.

I always loved the "small government" party pushing for social tyranny.

Kind of like how the "social justice" party keeps pushing for restriction of liberty.

They're all just tyrants.

This is how much Republican voters hate Obama.

Past "moral" issues that they refused to bend on are being tossed out the window...as long as it means beating Obama.

Way to stand up for your "morals" Republicans.

reply to post by jjkenobi

Pro-Choice is OK. Funding abortions with our govt tax dollars is NOT ok.

I can see your point and I can agree with you. But are abortions government subsidized? Are they offered for free? or is it the fact that the doctors get paid that you don't like?

I'm Canadian so most of my medical care would be considered "free", it's not, I pay for it via taxes, but there's no massive direct bill for a procedure.

I was under the impression that in the US you needed medical insurance or an HMO to get treated, or you pay out of your pocket. Is this no longer the case? Did Obama actually push through a socialized medicare package that covers every American on the governments dime?

See, I thought he merely mandated, or attempted to mandate, that all people must be covered under insurance, this is not socialized medicine.

Unless any woman in america can get a free abortion, I don't think your argument is valid.

reply to post by Xeven


Pro-choice is about a woman deciding to choose between abortion or not. No President of the USA will make abortions illegal, it's all about keeping the population down without having to give birth to unwanted children or unborn children with disabilities.

Abortion is not an easy decision for any woman to make but it's her decision, it's private, and it's no one else's business.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
Unless any woman in america can get a free abortion, I don't think your argument is valid.

Some info

Between state funding, federal funding and other various non-profits who serve to funnel federal and state funds to their causes it is possible and does happen.

Once our money is collected at gunpoint from us there are infinite routes and methods organizations and governments use to get it into any pocket they want.

Just because the US doesnt have a stated and defined socialized medicine system doesnt mean everyone is paying out of pocket for everything.

This countrys greatest national pastime is swindling extorted funds.

unfortianatly unless you know someone as well as a close relative, or friend, chances are that whomever is doing the perceiving can't actually tell what the person really beleives "deep down"

reply to post by jjkenobi


It's a whole lot cheaper to fund abortions than it is to help finance a child from birth to 18 years of age....and I don't see the anti-Abortionists hanging about assisting the child of a single parent or paying it's medical bills and education until it reaches legal age. And I sure as hell don't see any anti-Abortionists helping out the mothers of children with severe biological and/or physical disabilities.

Oh, Oh, there goes the republican chances of winning the presidential election. That issue is their major following. It doesn't matter if the economy is in the sewer or people are out of work and losing their homes, the issue of having our government control a women's personal choice supersedes everything! I always found it hypocritical when conservatives claim they want less government intervening in our personal lives, yet they fight to overturn Roe vs Wade.

reply to post by Xeven


I'll just ask, have these two had the same view for 30 years and have they been voting in that fashion or is it just recently??

I do wish people would look into things like that rather than just believing what they say during an election campaign..

reply to post by WeRpeons

Oh, Oh, there goes the republican chances of winning the presidential election. That issue is their major following. It doesn't matter if the economy is in the sewer or people are out of work and losing their homes, the issue of having our government control a women's personal choice supersedes everything!

That's where you're wrong. It matters to some conservatives more than others, but it's not the primary issue in the GOP plank. Not by a long shot.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I always loved the "small government" party pushing for social tyranny.

Yeah, I love that, too! They want big government when it comes to controlling what people do in their personal lives. They're the party of BIG government when it comes to who I sleep with, whether or not I procreate, what I want to put in my body and who I want to marry...

reply to post by backinblack

Originally posted by backinblack
I'll just ask, have these two had the same view for 30 years and have they been voting in that fashion or is it just recently??

Good job! Look behind the headlines. I love it!

Mitt Romney on the Issues

Firmly pro-life; including Court nominations. (Jun 2011)
GovWatch: 2002: “preserve & protect” right to choose. (Feb 2008)
I took action as governor to preserve the sanctity of life. (Dec 2007)
No punishment for women who have partial birth abortions. (Dec 2007)
FactCheck: TV ad ignores recency of conversion to pro-life. (Dec 2007)
Would be delighted to sign federal ban on all abortions. (Nov 2007)
Two-step process: overturn Roe; then change hearts & minds. (Sep 2007)
Was pro-choice, now proudly pro-life. (Dec 2007)

And apparently now, pro-choice again.

Much more confusion and waffling at the source. This guy's like a reed in the wind. I wouldn't trust him with my dog's old, chewed up toys.

Herman Cain on the Issues

Life, liberty & pursuit of happiness starts with unborn life. (May 2011)
Defund Planned Parenthood; intent was to kill black babies. (Jan 2011)
Life begins at conception, period. (Jan 2011)

Sounds Pro-Life to me...

But... Sounds Pro-choice to me...

"It's not the government's role or anybody else's role to make that decision. ... It ultimately gets down to a CHOICE that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president, not some politician, not some bureaucrat... The government shouldn't be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make." Herman Cain

These guys are both lying scumbags.

Making abortion an issue in the upcoming presidental election is like arguing about the dinner menu on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. We've got bigger problems. Problems that neither Romney, Cain, or Obama will even attempt to solve.

A government's role should not be to limit an individual's choice. It has no place in our personal moral decisions and we should not be concerned with an individual's choices that affect their own lives -- of which will bear zero consequences on us personally. Just because you are pro-choice, it doesn't mean you are personally pro-abortion. it does mean you concede others the freedom to make their own personal decisions they feel is best for them.

reply to post by Xeven


I say I won't vote for either of them, or Perry, for that matter. Don't trust any of those three. They change what they have said in the past, and they all three cover up things they don't want people to remember.

Alright, since it's become part of the topic of the post, my opinions on abortion (just to keep things straight). It is MURDER. Period. No debate. No one has a choice to KILL another person, just because it isn't convenient to them, or whatever reason, to have a child. Life begins at conception, and thus each aborted baby is denied all of their rights.