Romney vs. Thompson
There are two ways that we can look at the life issue: from a moral standpoint and from a legal standpoint. Thankfully, the pro-life side has the upper hand on both of these, but especially legally. While I find it silly that morals-especially the morals of abortion-somehow change with each individual person, legally things are pretty clear. In fact, legalities only seem gray when certain kinds of people choose to bypass democracy and have high courts hand them over what they want because white-trash ignorant religious folk won't pass third-trimester abortions on demand.
I imagine that all of us in this community consider abortion as a factor when choosing someone to vote for. Since this community is especially diverse, many won't vote for a Republican at all. But those of us who are Republicans have an interesting field of people to choose from.
The problem arises when you have...well, the field of candidates that we have. Of those who may actually have a chance of winning, there are no real shining stars. We simply have to look at 1) the candidate's voting history and 2) their personal beliefs regarding abortion.
None of us fall for the baloney people like Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani spew with the "Well, I'm personally pro-life, but..." usually ending in some heinous approval of a disgusting procedure, so long as it's "the woman's choice". But there are two other candidates who are front runners that many of us who are pro-life will probably choose between come primary time: Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney.
First off, I want to say, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about who to vote for. I'm just giving my perspective-and it is done with dismay. While I personally like Romney and will probably vote for him unless Fred changes some things, it's not like I have great enthusiasm about it. This is just a presentation of my observations.
Mitt Romney, it is known, was a pro-choice governor or a pro-choice state. Almost all of his abortion-related decisions came out in favor of death. However, according to him, when looking at the embryonic stem-cell research issue, he began to have a change of heart. When he came out against the side of death on ESCR, he could only, logically, extend that viewpoint to more developed babies. I would imagine that his conscience probably bothered him quite a bit as well, knowing what his religion (Mormonism) says about slaughtering children in vitro. Why he decided to take a pro-choice position is anyone's guess, but given as he was the governor a north-eastern state, that may say something.
I have listened to many interviews with Romney, with almost all of the early ones discussing this as it was in the news spotlight for a while. He explained his conversion countless times, and continues to hold that he will be a pro-life president. I feel that the chances of him running with such a strong pro-life platform and yet him continuing to manage things in a pro-choice way will be very unlikely, and he would never be re-elected. What's more, he talks about how the pro-life issue has an effect on him.
Thompson, on the other hand, has a pretty good pro-life voting record, and also claims to be pro-life. In another thread, I said that I didn't like Fred Thompson. This is because, while at one time I was very excited for him to run, when he actually ran he showed very little enthusiasm. This annoyed me. He has also made comments along the campaign trail that insinuate that his heart really isn't in the race. So that's why I don't like the guy, personally. I feel as if he's wasting everyone's time. I am sure that, if he is elected, he will be a great president and win me over. But now, I find him irritating.
I also said that I didn't really think that Thompson was pro-life. This isn't name calling, by the way. And it's not flinging mud at Thompson. It's a statement saying...that I don't think that Thompson is pro-life. I say this because there are countless examples of "pro-life" politicians who are really pro-choice, but they vote pro-life to appease the base. George Bush I comes to mind. Laura Bush, the current president's wife, is also pro-choice, and while that doesn't necessarily affect her husband's views, I think it says something about that family in general: they're not one great big NRLC-Family. And just because they are Republicans doesn't mean that they are automatically pro-life.
My biggest reason for thinking this about Thompson are because of his comments about abortion. They are all about legalities, Roe vs. Wade, Supreme Court, "bad law", etc. He has yet to share any...passion over the issue. Concern over babies being killed, for example. I'm not saying that perhaps, deep down, this stuff is there. But he's not doing a good job conveying it to me. And while I agree that we who are pro-life should do what's politically smart, the "principal pro-lifer" in me wants to be reassured, to a degree, that the person who is running on a pro-life platform has a concern that babies are being killed rather than bad law passing through our Supreme Courts.
I imagine that all of us in this community consider abortion as a factor when choosing someone to vote for. Since this community is especially diverse, many won't vote for a Republican at all. But those of us who are Republicans have an interesting field of people to choose from.
The problem arises when you have...well, the field of candidates that we have. Of those who may actually have a chance of winning, there are no real shining stars. We simply have to look at 1) the candidate's voting history and 2) their personal beliefs regarding abortion.
None of us fall for the baloney people like Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani spew with the "Well, I'm personally pro-life, but..." usually ending in some heinous approval of a disgusting procedure, so long as it's "the woman's choice". But there are two other candidates who are front runners that many of us who are pro-life will probably choose between come primary time: Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney.
First off, I want to say, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about who to vote for. I'm just giving my perspective-and it is done with dismay. While I personally like Romney and will probably vote for him unless Fred changes some things, it's not like I have great enthusiasm about it. This is just a presentation of my observations.
Mitt Romney, it is known, was a pro-choice governor or a pro-choice state. Almost all of his abortion-related decisions came out in favor of death. However, according to him, when looking at the embryonic stem-cell research issue, he began to have a change of heart. When he came out against the side of death on ESCR, he could only, logically, extend that viewpoint to more developed babies. I would imagine that his conscience probably bothered him quite a bit as well, knowing what his religion (Mormonism) says about slaughtering children in vitro. Why he decided to take a pro-choice position is anyone's guess, but given as he was the governor a north-eastern state, that may say something.
I have listened to many interviews with Romney, with almost all of the early ones discussing this as it was in the news spotlight for a while. He explained his conversion countless times, and continues to hold that he will be a pro-life president. I feel that the chances of him running with such a strong pro-life platform and yet him continuing to manage things in a pro-choice way will be very unlikely, and he would never be re-elected. What's more, he talks about how the pro-life issue has an effect on him.
Thompson, on the other hand, has a pretty good pro-life voting record, and also claims to be pro-life. In another thread, I said that I didn't like Fred Thompson. This is because, while at one time I was very excited for him to run, when he actually ran he showed very little enthusiasm. This annoyed me. He has also made comments along the campaign trail that insinuate that his heart really isn't in the race. So that's why I don't like the guy, personally. I feel as if he's wasting everyone's time. I am sure that, if he is elected, he will be a great president and win me over. But now, I find him irritating.
I also said that I didn't really think that Thompson was pro-life. This isn't name calling, by the way. And it's not flinging mud at Thompson. It's a statement saying...that I don't think that Thompson is pro-life. I say this because there are countless examples of "pro-life" politicians who are really pro-choice, but they vote pro-life to appease the base. George Bush I comes to mind. Laura Bush, the current president's wife, is also pro-choice, and while that doesn't necessarily affect her husband's views, I think it says something about that family in general: they're not one great big NRLC-Family. And just because they are Republicans doesn't mean that they are automatically pro-life.
My biggest reason for thinking this about Thompson are because of his comments about abortion. They are all about legalities, Roe vs. Wade, Supreme Court, "bad law", etc. He has yet to share any...passion over the issue. Concern over babies being killed, for example. I'm not saying that perhaps, deep down, this stuff is there. But he's not doing a good job conveying it to me. And while I agree that we who are pro-life should do what's politically smart, the "principal pro-lifer" in me wants to be reassured, to a degree, that the person who is running on a pro-life platform has a concern that babies are being killed rather than bad law passing through our Supreme Courts.