Defending Natioanl Right to Life's Political Actions

[natewillsheets]

You all probably know that I was somewhat disappointed with National Right to Life's (NRLC) recent endorsement of Fred Thompson. This was however, in my opinion, an inevitable endorsement. Romney's my man, and perhaps that played a part in the slight sadness as well. But I think really what I didn't like was the timing of it

Comments

[drecat]

I personally don't see why you would choose Romney over Thompson, considering Romney was OPENLY PRO-CHOICE only a few short years ago, and Thompson's voting record clearly shows an aherence to pro-life consistently throughout his career.

[natewillsheets]

Just because someone used to be pro-choice doesn't mean that they can't change. See Ronald Regan. I believe that Romney's pro-life conversion is true, and it can be traced to before the election when he had to deal with embryonic stem-cell research. The guy is Mormon after all. It's not like he was far away from the truth of the issue very long, but at the same time the guy was the governor of Mass.!

[drecat]

Well, sorry, but I'm more inclined to believe a consitent pro-life voting record than a "Hey guys, I'm totally different now, for really and truly!" from someone who used to be pro-choice then changed their mind for whatever reason. Not to mention, I don't like his health care plan which mandates health care for private citizens. It takes away personal freedom. I don't even like the fact that car insurance is mandated by the government.

And, it's not like Massachusettes is an infamously conservative state.

[drecat]

HA. Speaking of Romney's health care plan, here's a little tidbit I find particularly interesting:

"$50 co-pay for abortions

While court mandate requires Massachusetts to cover "medically necessary" abortions in state-subsidized health plans, Mitt Romney's plan covers ALL abortions - no restrictions.

After it passed, Romney vetoed dental care for Medicaid recipients from his health plan, but did nothing to prevent coverage of abortion on demand for a mere $50."

So...yeah. There's a "pro-life" Romney for ya.

[so_magical]

Why are you disapointed?

Not because I'm trying to harass you, but because I am curious.

[natewillsheets]

Because, I don't like Thompson, I don't really think he's pro-life, and I don't think they needed to endorse someone so early.

[drecat]

We're all on the same side of this issue. I really don't think we need to be splitting hairs over which pro-life candidate is "really" pro-life.

Sorry if I was a little harsh on Mitt Romney in my other posts, but I don't think your smack-talking of Thompson and Romney-pimping is really appropriate here.

Hell, even the people around here who support Ron Paul, whose constituency is infamous for being a...ahem...little over passionate about their politics...haven't been really putting down other candidates and going into hard-core advertising mode for their guy.

[natewillsheets]

>>smack-talking of Thompson and Romney-pimping is really appropriate here.<<

It isn't my intention to be hostile toward Thompson. Someone asked me a question, and I answered it. The truth is, I don't really think that Thompson is pro-life, forget whatever voting record he has. Just like George Bush, in my opinion.

And I do think it's totally appropriate here. This is prolife, and we're having a civil discussion about our pro-life political choices. I'm not anti-Thompson by any means. He's just not my first choice and if he at least acts pro-life while in office minimal damage will be done. There is just a comfort in voting for someone who you think actually holds pro-life beliefs (Romney, Huckabee, Paul, etc.) vs. someone who you don't quite trust (Thompson, Giuliani)