Can Romney get evangelical Christian support?
I think that people have to understand that being for Rick Santorum does not necessarily mean you’re anti-Romney.
And against Barack Obama, it will not be very difficult at all for Mr. Romney to garner the support of… the evangelicals, unless he were to do something catastrophic, like pick a pro-choice running mate, which I don’t think he’s going to do.
~ Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, as quoted by Christianity Today, April 16
[Photo via Christianity Today]
Apr.17, 2012 3:00 am |
Campaign |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
One way Romney could improve his appeal with social conservatives is to have an advisor, such as Jill, on life issues.
Ideally this advisor could become part of the government (the area of life issues is the one area that needs to be governed and currently isn’t). This new government position could be part of Homeland Security!!! I wish this idea of having another cabinet advisor as part of the Department of Homeland Secuirty was merely a bad pun but it is not; this idea is not only seriously needed and overdue, it is appropriate. Without someone ensuring that the population of the US is “always” growing, the US faces the constant threat of a demographic winter. There is no reason or obstacle, save political will, not to have a political position dedicated to pro-life issues. The unborn need to be protected. Does the GOP have the courage to do this?
The GOP’s prolife commitment needs to be more transparent and prominent, and not less transparent and prominent.
Has Mitt signed the Personhood Pledge?
How about Santorum or Bachmann for VP?
Here is Mitt Romney’s self-designed Pro-Life Pledge:
http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/06/my-pro-life-pledge
Make of it what you will.
For comparison, here is PersonhoodUSA’s Personhood Republican Presidential Candidate Pledge:
http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/personhood-republican-presidential-candidate-pledge
Palin for VP!
Mitt has to walk a fine line – trying for support but without driving too many other people away.
Palin is probably waiting for the next election cycle to run. Anyone running against an incumbent president is playing against a deck stacked for the house. I worry about Palin as vice with a lukewarm running-mate like Romney. I don’t want to see McCain Campaign II: Fail Harder.
I wouldn’t mind Herman Cain as vice, though. :3
Doug, only in your opinion, and the opinion of the political pundits on the left. With respect to life issues, the GOP proposes its ideas/message fearfully. The Left have done a masterful job of instilling fear in the GOP. Indeed, it appears the Left have performed a vasectomy on the GOP brass – when it comes to life issues the GOP’s position has been neutered.
In addition to displaying the virtue of honesty Stanek, Santorum, and Bachmann have all proven that they have the virute of courage. The virtue of courage has allowed these three people to follow through with implementing their prolife convictions in the realm of politics.
Like the excellent Governor from Texas, Mr. Romney needs to have a sit down discussion with Ms. Rebecca Kiessling as to why the rape and incest exceptions to the pro-life position are not morally sound.
Romney may not be perfect, but he’s certainly not dumb enough to pick a prochoice running mate.
It seems to me that both the GOP and the Democrats have instituted a quasi-religious test for their respective Presidential candidates – no 100% pro-lifers allowed.
I am pro-life, but believe that babies who were conceived in rape or incest, or by mothers who are sick – should be aborted!
Talk about confusion! You are either pro-LIFE (all life all the time) or you are not! Now it sounds like, oh yes, I believe every human being should have their life protected by the law, except these and these…. Grrr… What will he do when he passes these laws and suddenly millions of women will start claiming they were raped or they will kill themselves if they don’t get an abortion?
Vita, I agree with the sentiment of your argument, but for clarity’s sake, one needs to know that the “life of the mother” exception doesn’t mean suicidal mothers get to have abortions. If the “life of the mother” exception meant that it would be more akin to the mental “health” exception that is currently in place, and permits abortion for any reason. The “life of the mother” exception refers to the physical well-being and health of the mother and not her mental health.
I think Mitt Romney’s comment in his pledge that signing the USA Personhood Pledge would ”end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America” has to be inaccurate. I think someone must have given Mr. Romney bad information about the PersonhoodUSA personhood pledge.
I think part of the problem in the GOP is that they think life issues are simple and not complex. However, as any committed pro-lifer like Jill knows, pro-life issues are far from simple, especially in the current legal environment. The simple idea of protecting all human life is amazingly complicated to implement. Indeed, many of the scientific issues surrounding life issues are complex and are not easily grasped by the person untrained in human biology. The GOP needs someome who understands these issues intimately and has lengthy experience dealing with them. The related women issues are also often misunderstood and under-represented by the GOP. Only committed pro-lifers understand the pro-choice arguments, and are familiar enough with them to rebut them effectively.
Palin won’t ever be running again – there’s too much money in the talk show and cable news circuit. She just has to pop up every few months and threaten to run to stay relevant.
Jill for VP!!
My message to Mr. Romney and the GOP brass:
They are worth it. All the unborn babies are worth your open and forthright efforts to save them. They are worth it – the children conceived in rape or incest, the disabled children, the mentally challenged children, the African-American children, the hispanic children, the caucasian children, all pre-born children are worth standing up for – launch a campaign you can be proud of, and not a campaign that you strategically hope will earn you enough votes to get elected. Take the risk, enough pre-born children have died.
Tyler, if Romney starts talking about criminalizing all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, he’s going to loose the socially moderate Northeast Republicans (think Christie Todd Whitman) some of whom are pro-choice or pro-life with qualifications. As this will be a very close election, he can’t afford to alienate that group who, as conservatives, don’t like big government especially that which intrudes into women’s uteri. Remember, of the 1,000 women who protested the transvaginal ultrasound law in Virginia, some of them were Republicans. These are the same Republican women who believe that forcing a woman to bear the child of a rapist is barbaric.
The choosing of a VP running mate is the biggest thrill of my life. (My life is pretty boring). But I truly can’t wait to see whom he picks! Here’s the ultimate proof that Romney is not All That Conservative: he’s going to pick a Real Conservative as a running mate, to form a contrast and scoop up some more voters on the right. Rubio or Rand Paul.
CC, I am calling for a moral leader. The kind of leader that thinks every human being is valuable, the kind of leader who recognizes that every human being has inherent worth and recognizes that a child’s worth is not determined by the skin color, character, or moral integrity of that child’s parents. Some people used to think that it was barbaric when the races mixed, but the grown-ups learned that everyone has worth no matter what their ethnic origin or their hereditary background is. As far as I am aware, the elitism of the kind you represent CC has long been denounced by civil society as offensive to basic human rigths.
I think the socially moderate (a misnomer if there ever was one) crowd will get over Mitt Romney embracing a strong pro-life position. This socially moderate crowd are primarily concernced with small government as you have indicated so Mr. Romney is in a political environment that will enable him to embrace the most moral pro-life position he dares to take on. Protection for all of the unborn, no exceptions save the life of the Mother is not a position that is opposed to small government and personal responsibility. In fact, given the structure of the US economy the pro-life position is also a sound economic position. Abortion costs society millions of dollars. One only has to think of all the deceased taxpayers slaughtered by abortion to realize that abortion is not only immoral but an economically stupid procedure for any Western government to legalize and support. Abortion murders the economy as well as the preborn child.
Now that he’s running in the general election rather than the Republican primary, Mitt Romney has every reason to position himself closer to the political center in order to appeal to swing voters, not further from it in order to appeal to conservatives who are going to vote for him anyway. You can rest assured that you’ve seen Mitt Romney as conservative as he’s ever going to get.
CC, furthermore pro-lifers no longer need to criminalize abortion – that was the legal dispute of the 1970’s. Modern Pro-life politicians only have to support protecting the life of the unborn. This protective task only requires the politician to support and promote amending the US Constitution. Once the unborn are recognized as persons the US constitutions will protect their rights so that all of the rights that you enjoy will be imputed to them. The unborn will have a right to life that will be protected by US law. The criminal laws that protect you, will then protect them. The politician does not need to sound like a Troll wanting to criminalize abortion, the politician need only sound noble: granting Constitutional rights to a disadvantaged group of people.
“Indeed, it appears the Left have performed a vasectomy on the GOP brass – when it comes to life issues the GOP’s position has been neutered.”
==============================================================
Tyler,
you give the ‘left’ too much credit and, with respect to the GOP brass,
you confuse cause and effect.
A vasectomy leaves the testes intact.
The GOP brass fear the left because they suffer from ‘testiculus absentus’.
They are self made eunuchs.
They crave acceptance and approval from the faux inteligentsia.
Ken, I knew I should have learned latin. It would have come in handy earlier today.
CC, it is really wrong to use the word “forced” in connection with “birth” or “pregnancy.” There is no such thing. Neither the government or the public has ever forced a women to be pregnant or to give birth. As you know, birth occurs naturally, without any coercion external to the Mother. Abortion, on the otherhand, does force the fetus to exit the mother’s uterus prematurely. In the case of abortion there is indeed an element of force. With abortion one does use the word “forced” in a rhetorical fashion, the external force used in abortion is real.
Americans love to protect the vulnerable. And the preborn are vulnerable. Americans also like to be champions of justice. And right now no other group of human beings are experiencing injustice to the same extent as the preborn. Unfortunately, CC it seems that you are living in the bronze ages given the scientific community’s consensus that life begins at fertilization. You think we still live in an age when humans living in pagan societies sacrificed the preborn and the very young to their gods.
CC, it is really wrong to use the word “forced” in connection with “birth” or “pregnancy.” There is no such thing. Neither the government or the public has ever forced a woman to be pregnant or to give birth. As you know, birth occurs naturally, without any coercion external to the Mother. Abortion, on the otherhand, does force the fetus to exit the mother’s uterus prematurely. In the case of abortion there is indeed an element of force. With abortion one does not use the word “forced” in a rhetorical fashion, the external “force” used in abortion is real.
xalisae and Jill helped to crystalize this point for me.
“One only has to think of all the deceased taxpayers slaughtered by abortion to realize that abortion is not only immoral but an economically stupid procedure for any Western government to legalize and support. Abortion murders the economy as well as the preborn child.”
…to which CC responded: “Thanks for validating the forced birth philosophy that women are breeders whose uteri (not that you’ve ever had any experience with that) are strictly for demographic purposes.”
…to which I reply that whoever is posting in CC’s name is using the word “strictly” without sense, inasmuch as her interlocutor cited the economic point as a concern in addition to its moral status.
Such an irrational response seems to follow from a zeal to shower contempt on pro-lifers, rather than from a concern for rational engagement.
“One only has to think of all the deceased taxpayers slaughtered by abortion to realize that abortion is not only immoral but an economically stupid procedure for any Western government to legalize and support.”
…and have you stopped to consider the number of women who have been able to stay in the workforce because they’ve had access to contraception and abortion?
Have you stopped to think that having all those additional women in the work force has resulted in lower wages for all the work force?
[law of supply and demand]
Then there is the question of all those babies who had to die so Rosie the Riveter could stay in the work force.
lol, good point, ken.
I’m sure we all remember the outrageous number of abortions required during WWII to keep women in the workforce. XD
I don’t like this guy at all. I hope he picks a prolife woman, like Kelly Ayotte, for vice president. If he does, I would vote for him. If he doesn’t I just am going to stay home.
I agree that Kelly Ayotte would make a good pick. It would be kind of funny to have a Republican ticket with two candidates from New England, but having two candidates from the south sure didn’t hurt Bill Clinton.
JDC — Kelly Ayotte is young, intelligent, a mom, strongly prolife, and she’s a Penn Stater! She would definitely get a few votes for that. I don’t think he’ll pick her, though. The VP will probably be some other boring white guy. Not that there’s anything wrong with boring white guys . . . ;-)
I was raised with the idea that voting is a moral obligation of ours. Staying home and not voting in a presidential election is cowardly, illogical, and plain wrong.
phillymiss is wikipaedia correct about Senator Ayotte’s pro-life position?
wiki says that her position is identical to Gov. Romney’s.
I don’t think Constitutional rights for the preborn is controversial.
Here is the Mormon position on abortion:
Abortion is considered by Mormons to be a great evil in this world and the shedding of innocent blood. Church leaders have condemned it except in very rare instances such as rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life, but this should still be considered very prayerfully and seriously. [Emphasiss added by commentator]
http://mormon.lds.net/abortion
[LDS] Elder Monte J. Brough has given counsel on the subject:
Upon learning that sexual activity outside of marriage has resulted in pregnancy, a young woman has four choices: marrying, not marrying but keeping the child, having an abortion, or placing the child for adoption. It is important to examine these four choices in light of information from various medical studies and in light of the teachings of the leaders of the Church” [1] Monte J. Brough, “Guidance for Unwed Parents,” Ensign, Sept. 1994, 19.]
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Abortion
[LDS] President Spencer W. Kimball said,
“Abortion, the taking of life, is one of the most grievous of sins. We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the Church in unalterably opposing all abortions, except in two rare instances: When conception is the result of forcible rape and when competent medical counsel indicates that a mother’s health would otherwise be seriously jeopardized [1] The Church maintains this stance thirty years later. Even when one of the rare extenuating circumstances arises, the Church counsels women that abortion is still a gravely serious matter which should be considered only after having consulted with local curch leaders and after fervently praying to know if the decision is correct.
When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption.” “True to the Faith”, 2004, p.4-5 http://www.mormonwiki.com/Abortion
How does an evangelical Christian reconcile these views on life issues with their own?
If there is a Mormon pro-lifer reading these posts can they validate or contradict the above quotes? Do the quotes above reflect the Mormon Church’s view on abortion accurately?
The answer to Jill’s question: Yes, Romney will get the support of evangelicals…they have no other choice than to sit on their hands and let the socialist (and his royal family) have four more years to wreak havoc upon our economy, our job creators, our energy producers, our constitution, our families, and our religious and personal freedoms.
President Romney will sign pro-life and pro-family legislation that is placed before him. He will use the greater part of his energy focusing on the economy so it is up to us to elect a sizable majority of like thinking legislators to introduce and pass the life and family agenda through legislative fiat. And should Romney miss on one of his SCOTUS nominations we have to rise to the occasion and deal with in like manner as when Bush tried to push Harriet Miers on us.
Jerry after reading his pledge and discovering the views of the Mormon Church on abortion I am not sure if Governor Romney will promote a Constitutional amendment that would extend Constitutional rights to the preborn.
I wish I had seen this issue more clearly earlier on in the primary.
His refusal to sign the PersonhoodUSA Personhood Pledge is more of a glaring issue now that I discovered the views of the Mormon Church on abortion. I am not sure where Mr. Romney stands with respect to the rights of the preborn.
There’s no “Mormon position” on anything at all, really. This is because Mormons believe the Holy Spirit validates the spiritual impressions that form in their brains. In fact, Mormons see no problems with different Mormons holding entirely different viewpoints on vital spiritual issues. If the Holy Spirit leads a brother differently than I, well, that’s a good thing. In fact, many Mormons describe it as less of a concern with truth than with what a person needs at some point in their life. Why what they need would not be at least true is not clear, but this view is indeed held by many LdS.
It doesn’t matter if an LdS apostle or elder has said something. You simply can’t hold the Mormon church to what some leader has said. Trust me. And you CERTAINLY can’t hold individual Mormons to what Mormon leaders have said. If the Holy Spirit doesn’t ratify it in their brain, it’s not for them.
This is much different than how orthodox Christianity understand’s the Holy Spirit’s work. He leads Christians into Truth. If Christians are led into diverse, contradictory paths, then someone is wrong. In Mormonism, all can be “right”.
Take it from a veteran of about 25,000 Usenet posts among Mormons. ;)
Sadly, and I hope someone can tell me that I am wrong, but on pro-life issues Governor Romney seems less of a flip-flopper and more definitely pro-choice: children conceived in rape seem to be non-humans that may be aborted at the willl of the mother to him and the Mormon Church.
Rasqual, is it just a coincidence that Gov. Romney’s abortion position is identical to the abortion position of the Elders in his Church?
Rasqual, I am not sure if what you just said is comforting or more frightening. I hope your characterization of the Mormon religion is not accurate.
Rasqual are you saying that Mormons are moral relativists?
Saying that Mormons are moral relativists would be saying something is certainly true of all Mormons. My characterization is just the opposite — that you can’t pin Mormons down to any given thing.
In general, no, they’d not be relativists. But there’s more “flex” in Mormonism than elsewhere. In orthodox Christendom, moral libertines know they’re out of bounds — or it is known by their fellow saints that they are. In Mormonism, those in the flock who differ with you on this or that spiritual issue (not necessarily “moral” per se) are merely experiencing God’s independent operations in their life, contradictions be damned. Note that this is a close brush with longstanding orthodox understanding of how God operates; the important distinction is that in Mormonism, truth just isn’t as important to God as that whatever he does with you is what you happen to need at the time. God can use what the rest of us would consider untruth to do his good work in your life. Not, mind you, that he can do well by you in spite of your delusions. That’s true of every one of us, truth be known. No. In Mormonism, it’s that God himself may lead people to believe contradictory things, because it’s what they happen to need at whatever point in their spiritual walk they’re at.
Hoping my “characterization of the Mormon religion is not accurate” is partly missing the point — it can be characterized, but that characterization will meet Mormons who will ask “where on earth did you get such an idea?” Again, something very like this happens in any religous tradition. In orthodox Christianity, though, it’s a bug. In Mormonism, it’s a feature.
One reason it’s an important feature in Mormonism is that it renders criticisms that rely on logic ineffectual. “But Joseph Smith said that . . . ” It doesn’t matter what he said. A Mormon’s not going to be concerned about ludicrous remarks by old Mormon prophets, because what they said way back then isn’t as important as the impressions the Holy Spirit, putatively, is giving them at this particular moment in their life.
It’s pretty much solipsistic — and crediting the Holy Spirit with whatever happens in their head. Again, regardless of whether some other Mormon’s experience is at variance.
“ is it just a coincidence that Gov. Romney’s abortion position is identical to the abortion position of the Elders in his Church?”
No. The flexibility of believing that what happens in your head is the Holy Spirit’s doing permits you to weather political pressure by being as expedient as you feel you need to be. As long as you’re a “nice” person and pay your tithes and jump through the church’s small handful of hoops, you may be confident that the details just don’t matter.
Personally I don’t find that scary in Romney. I have no idea whether he feels or thinks he’s obliged to “hear from God” when making presidential decisions. Obama seems to think it’s important to heed what he considers Jesus social teaching to be, so I can’t imagine anyone on the left being alarmed at the prospect of Romney doing homage in that territory as well. Generally, I’d be more concerned about Romney’s capacity to be a chameleon.
In general, Mormons do tend to believe that America and its Constitution were divinely appointed. That’s a fairly consistent thing, largely because of the belief that so much divine focus was on the Americas, per the risible fiction that is the Book of Mormon. The Constitution is mostly considered a divinely inspired document. Maybe that means Romney would respect it. Maybe his free-wheelin’ Mormon pneumatology would leave the Constitution open to being a “living document” in his estimate, little different than Obama’s ilk. I don’t know.
There’s one odd thing about Mormons’ freedom to believe such a wide range of things. Where they’re not obliged to differ with orthodox Christians — that is, where they’re genuinely free to agree — few make it a point of concern to be in agreement with orthodox Christians. It’s as if regardless of the fact that many of their brethren end up believing the same things orthodox Christians believe, their belief that we are apostate and they alone are repristinated Christianity obliges them to avoid anything resembling rapprochement.
Aside from the fact that I had to look up the meaning of four words, you made some interesting and informative comments rasqual! Yet, I would still like to hear from a Mormon.
Jerry, how can you be sure that Romney will sign pro-life legislation if he won’t even sign the Personhood Pledge? I am surprised I missed this one – already, before he is President, his actions are not matching his words!
Jill, is it possible for you to take back your endorsement of Governor Romney and wait until he signs the Personhood Pledge?
I don’t think Constitutional rights for the preborn is controversial.
You may think it’s a good idea, but you have to admit it’s controversial.
Here is another alarming connection/fact that I overlooked: the only other GOP candidate that didn’t sign the Personhood Pledge was Jon Huntsman – another Mormon. I don’t like the way this is trending. Mr. Romney’s pro-choice position may be a religious conviction and not the result of a shrewd political calculus as I originally thought.
Hal, what’s controversial about it???
No one is harmed by granting the preborn Constitutional rights.
Granting basic human rights to all living human beings on our soil?! HOW CONTROVERSIAL!
Why I never! *monocle falls off face then swings from chain*
Tyler: Doug, only in your opinion, and the opinion of the political pundits on the left. With respect to life issues, the GOP proposes its ideas/message fearfully.
Tyler, I think you’re contradicting yourself right there. Hey – say what you want – it’s a real deal. Yeah, perhaps they have been a bit “fearful,” but with good reason. Most Americans are in-between Obama and Romney. You start injecting too much “really far to the right” stuff, and you’re taking votes away from Romney on a net basis.
Tyler: I think part of the problem in the GOP is that they think life issues are simple and not complex. However, as any committed pro-lifer like Jill knows, pro-life issues are far from simple, especially in the current legal environment. The simple idea of protecting all human life is amazingly complicated to implement. Indeed, many of the scientific issues surrounding life issues are complex and are not easily grasped by the person untrained in human biology. The GOP needs someome who understands these issues intimately and has lengthy experience dealing with them. The related women issues are also often misunderstood and under-represented by the GOP.
Tyler, have to laugh – even as a pro-choicer I disagree with you. If you say, “It’s as simple as this – the most important thing is the life of the unborn,” what, in your opinion, is wrong with that?
The “scientific issues” are really not the argument.
em>understands these issues intimately and has lengthy experience dealing with them. The related women issues are also often misunderstood and under-represented by the GOP.
I do have to give you full credit for that one.
wd-edge.sharethis.com is really slowing this site down to a crawl, if not an eternally-unresolved stasis; it just doesn’t load and let the page continue….
Tyler:
In answer to your question obviously no one knows with absolute certainty how a person will act. I am presuming that he would sign the bills based upon the dynamics; i.e. a Republican president presented with a bill passed by a Republican congress. And unlike Obama who would rather a child born alive in a botched abortion be allowed to suffer and die without the touch of human kindness, Romney strikes me as a fundamentally decent individual who can be reached on these issues.
Doug, protecting the unborn is more than a moral issue, it is a Constitutional issue. Until the GOP brass realize they will not understand the fight they are in. It means the GOP have to give greater voice to the pro-lifers.
There are a few postive things that could result with a Romney Presidency or more accurately, with the first Mormon Presidency:
1) If a Constitutional amendment to protect the preborn does come to pass under the Presidency of a Mormon, the Left will not be able to argue that the President implemented his religious views on the country;
2) The second good thing in having a Mormon as President is partially related to the first point above and is also partially related to the first amendment controversy around the HHS mandate. A Mormon Presidency will highlight the bigotry and anti-religious rhetoric of that the left has used against orthodox Christians. The silly argument that one can’t bring their religious views into the public square will finally be exposed for the intolerant atheistic non-secular attitude that it is. It reveal that secularism is not the same as atheism. A Mormon Presidency will reveal that most, if not all “secular” viewpoints are also “religious” viewpoints; therefore, ultimately someone’s religious viewpoint is being imposed on the general public. A Mormon Presidency will reveal that morality and legality need to appeal to Reason and not to some pre-conceived notion of secular truth. The pro-choice stance held by the Mormon Church reveals that all laws can privilige one moral/religious position over another.
President Reagan explained to us that the pro-life issue was a Constitutional issue; but the GOP seemed to forget. The GOP and many pro-lifers seemed to think it was a criminal law issue – it is not. It is fundamentally a human rights issue. Senator Santorum and few others understands this.
It seems like a simple enough idea, but for some reason it keeps being forgotten or overlooked or….
So don’t forget…it is a Constitutional issue. A feather in the cap for the first President to advance the ball on this issue.
In my humble opinion the only mistake in the excellent speech made by President Reagan in the following video is in the President’s preamble where he says: “I know what I am about to say is controversial.” Sorry President Reagan it is not controversial, what you said is right and will always be so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Elph9CfsKs&feature=related
The American people were not meant to cower in the shadow of President Reagan, they were meant to stand on his shoulders, to reach for the stars, to conserve the shinning city on the hill, to safeguard freedom. and to protect the right to life for all of the American people including the preborn. The American people were never meant to be ruled over by a government of elites. Mr. Reagan said as much. As he has said, he didn’t make himself President or rediscover the American spirit by himself, it was the Reagan Regiments that did. “We the People” don’t forget the meaning and significance of those three words this coming election.
President Reagan was a model of servant leadership, humility in action.
I’m still voting for Rick Santorum in the Texas primary.
I think Mr. Romeny would be wise to consider Senator Santourm as VP. As the saying goes you can teach a person the skills the day to the job, but you can’t teach them character. Senator Santorum has character. Mr. Romney and GOP have the opportunity to groom him for the Presidency, to be the next great President.
Romney and the GOP may have missed an opportunity by not supporting a 100% pro-life position. A 100% pro-life position has many advantages in a general election.
1) It is a respectable and righteous position;
2) it doesn’t come with problems – the Candidate gets to take the high road and even to support legalizing abortion. Once the preborn are protected by the Constitution the State then can look at those situations where abortion might be warranted. The 100% pro-life position is not only smart from a politcal perspective but also from a legal perspective. The 100% pro-life position frames abortion in the proper context. Constitutional rights for the preborn allows the Government and the State to easily prevent sex selective abortions, and other morally repugnant elective abortions in a very civil way. Once the preborn’s rights are protected the State could legalize abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy for example, and in any other scenarios it feels abortion may be justified. Constitutional rights for the preborn does not deny the Mother her Constitutional rights. Granting the preborn their Constitutional rights is the smarter legal way to deal with abortion – it is definitely not as sloppy or as arbitrary as the current way the U.S. is dealing with abortion.
Texas Gal et al,
Soldier on Santorum supporters.
Tyler, I am neither Mormon not pro-life so you’ve got the wrong person to ask. However I am close friends with many Mormons and I find them to be a very kind and welcoming group of people so I do not stand by quietly when people bash them.
Actually, if Mormon theology is taken to its logical conclusion, the more abortions the better. The point of mortal existence in the LDS scheme of things is for “intelligences” to get bodies. One of two things is true, then. Either the unborn have their bodies — so the main point of mortality is achieved for them and who cares if they die — or the intelligences are not paired with bodies, so to speak, until birth (or whenever), in which case the unborn are just useless shells anyway, if they die young.
Elizabeth, you said that you know that people on this website who don’t like Mormons. Who do you consider is a Mormon basher on this website? I don’t think anyone is Mormon basher. The worst I have heard is people declaring they have a problem with Mormon theology, which is far from hating the Mormon person. Generally, I think the pople on this website are quite respectful of Mormons and Mr. Romney in particular.
Personally, I don’t know enough about Mormon theology, that is why I have asked the questions that I have.
I don’t think Elizabeth thinks anyone here has been bashing Mormons. She said she doesn’t stand quietly by when Mormons are being bashed — but she’s stood quietly by in this thread. Ergo, no one’s been bashing Mormons.
Excellent point rasqual. I think I misinterpreted Elizabeth’s point.
Thanks rasqual. I did not say that anyone in this post was bashing Mormons. I do feel a little prickly when people describe it as a “cult” but I also understand that the religion itself might feel foreign to people that are largely unfamiliar with it.
I disagree completely that Mormon theology believes “the more abortions the better” since most Mormons I know are mostly pro-life but, again, I’m not Mormon so I cannot speak as an expert.
And by “mostly pro-life” I mean they make exceptions for life of the mother, frown upon but don’t forbid exceptions for rape or incest, and are okay with contraception. They are however largely pro-life in the idea that family and parenthood is the path to happiness and important to your relationship with God.
I think my questions will go unanswered by a Mormon. I think Mormons take an Oath not to talk about their religion and its practices and its rituals. After doing a little reading (and I mean a little reading) on Mormonism it appears that Mr. Romney’s aloofness (failure to connect) might not have anything to do with being wealthy but it may be due in part to his Mormon faith. For example, the “cookie” incident where Mr. Romney didn’t want to eat the cookies could have had more to do with the Mormon “Word of Wisdom” health code. The secrecy of the Mormon faith and its practices may continue to cause these unsuspected bumps in the road.
However, the main concern is establishing Mr. Romney’s position on pro-life issues.