Is This a Pro-Life Statement? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Is This a Pro-Life Statement?


Trew2Life
10-13-2012, 17:40
"In the event the child is determined to be physiologically, genetically or chromosomally abnormal, the decision to abort or not to abort is to be made by the intended parents. In such a case the surrogate agrees to abort, or not to abort, in accordance with the intended parents' decision." (http://current.com/community/93910295_mitt-romney-paid-for-sons-surrogate-abortion-contract-right-to-kill-fetus.htm)

I thought the Romney's were supposed to be pro-life? The language used in this 'Gestational Carrier Agreement' between Tagg Romney and the surrogate mother isn't 'pro-life' language.

This is the last thing the GOP nominee needs with less than a month to the election.

G36's Rule
10-13-2012, 17:43
What office is Tagg running for?

tsmo1066
10-13-2012, 17:48
Yes, that's a pro-life statement. Most people who identify themselves as 'pro-life' DO, in fact, support abortions in limited circumstances, such as immediate risk to the mother's health, serious genetic defect, rape or incest, etc.

Only the absolutists at the radical fringes of the argument believe in either "no abortions-PERIOD", or "unlimited abortion on demand, even partial birth abortions during the eighth month".

Like it or not, most of America, to include most Republicans AND Democrats, are more moderate than those at the ragged fringes.

Jonesee
10-13-2012, 17:49
What office is Tagg running for?

Please read the article. Mitt paid for the surrogate contract.

And the language is not pro-life language.

I've said it before. Mitt is not a man of strong guiding principles.

tsmo1066
10-13-2012, 17:53
And the language is not pro-life language.


That's your private opinion, but it isn't shared by the majority of those who identify themselves as 'pro-life'.

G36's Rule
10-13-2012, 17:54
Please read the article. Mitt paid for the surrogate contract.

And the language is not pro-life language.

I've said it before. Mitt is not a man of strong guiding principles.

Who signed the contract?

RustyL
10-13-2012, 17:55
O can't use this against him if that is what you are worried about. O is good with killing a viable livable child through a botched abortion.




"In the event the child is determined to be physiologically, genetically or chromosomally abnormal, the decision to abort or not to abort is to be made by the intended parents. In such a case the surrogate agrees to abort, or not to abort, in accordance with the intended parents' decision." (http://current.com/community/93910295_mitt-romney-paid-for-sons-surrogate-abortion-contract-right-to-kill-fetus.htm)

I thought the Romney's were supposed to be pro-life? The language used in this 'Gestational Carrier Agreement' between Tagg Romney and the surrogate mother isn't 'pro-life' language.

This is the last thing the GOP nominee needs with less than a month to the election.

Jonesee
10-13-2012, 17:58
The language is not pro-life. The centrists may accept it but no one that is part of the pro-life movement will accept. Nor would the Catholic Church.

Spin it as you wish. But the language is not pro-life.

The language specifically allows abortions.

Jonesee
10-13-2012, 18:02
Mitts campaign staff did not deny it. Their stance is it was an oversight.

tsmo1066
10-13-2012, 18:02
The language is not pro-life. The centrists may accept it but no one that is part of the pro-life movement will accept. Nor would the Catholic Church.

Spin it as you wish. But the language is not pro-life.

The language specifically allows abortions.

Wrong again. 51% of all Americans identify themselves as "pro-life" (Gallup). That does not mean that 51% of all Americans agree that abortions should NEVER be acceptible, even in cases of rape, incest, serious genetic defect or immediate risk to the mother's life.

You are taking the viewpoint of pro-life ACTIVISTS and trying to extrapolate that to everyone else who opposes 'abortion on demand'. That's like taking PETA's viewpoint on animals and trying to apply it to everyone who identifies themselves as being an animal lover.

Jonesee
10-13-2012, 18:05
Wrong again. 51% of all Americans identify themselves as "pro-life" (Gallup). That does not mean that 51% of all Americans agree that abortions should NEVER be acceptible, even in cases of rape, incest, serious genetic defect or immediate risk to the mother's life.

You are taking the viewpoint of pro-life ACTIVISTS and trying to extrapolate that to everyone else who opposes 'abortion on demand'. That's like taking PETA's viewpoint on animals and trying to apply it to everyone who identifies themselves as being an animal lover.


You are so wrong about me.
I am firmly pro-choice. But I work with contracts very day. The contract overrides all else and all other intentions of the parties.

The contract specifically allows abortions. That won't square with the right to lifers and the Catholics and evangelical supporters within the party.


My point is Romney does not have strong unwavering principles on key issues.

Flying-Dutchman
10-13-2012, 18:08
This is the last thing the GOP nominee needs with less than a month to the election.
Thank you for your concern about Romney’s campaign but Obama is an extreme pro-abortion politician.

Mitt Romney is so squeaky clean they have to really dig to find something.

We would be in much better shape if they placed that kind of effort into Obama’s past. We cannot even get someone to leak his Columbia transcripts like Bush’s grades were leaked.

As for Abortion; 55,000,000 abortions since Roe V Wade is a disgrace but it is not a Federal issue and therefore not an issue Romney needs to address. The States should handle health and welfare.

January 1st 2013 is the fiscal cliff. We have big worries especially with do-nothing Obama.

G36's Rule
10-13-2012, 18:09
And the contract says the family has the right to make the choice. Nothing there says they have to abort.

Cali-Glock
10-13-2012, 18:10
Yes, that's a pro-life statement. Most people who identify themselves as 'pro-life' DO, in fact, support abortions in limited circumstances, such as immediate risk to the mother's health, serious genetic defect, rape or incest, etc.

Only the absolutists at the radical fringes of the argument believe in either "no abortions-PERIOD", or "unlimited abortion on demand, even partial birth abortions during the eighth month".

Like it or not, most of America, to include most Republicans AND Democrats, are more moderate than those at the ragged fringes.

Patently false.

tsmo1066
10-13-2012, 18:12
You are so wrong about me.
I am firmly pro-choice. But I work with contracts very day. The contract overrides all else and all other intentions of the parties.

The contract specifically allows abortions. That won't square with the right to lifers and the Catholics and evangelical supporters within the party.


My point is Romney does not have strong unwavering principles on key issues.

The contract allows abortion in the case of serious genetic defect or abnormality.

Most "pro-life" people would agree with that stance, just as most would agree with abortion in the event of a risk to the mother's life, or in cases of rape, etc.

Being 'pro-life' doesn't mean no abortions EVER...unless you're an activist at the radical fringes of the argument. The 51% of Americans who identify as "pro-life" aren't on those radical fringes, just as the vast majority of "pro-choice" Americans do, in fact, oppose many forms of abortion, such as late-term, partial-birth abortions, etc.

tsmo1066
10-13-2012, 18:14
Patently false.

So you are saying that 51% of all Americans oppose abortion in ALL cases, with ZERO exceptions?

That's Malarkey (to use Joe Biden's term).

Jonesee
10-13-2012, 18:15
And the contract says the family has the right to make the choice. Nothing there says they have to abort.

Correct. Abortion is contractually allowed. See we agree.


So an anti abortion presidential candidate paid to contract for "services" that allowed an abortion.
(as an "oversight")

And he also banned assault weapons in Mass. But really is a 2nd amendment supporter... (I know, another oversight)

And he also created the healthcare plan that Obama used as a pattern for Obamacare. (He didn't mean that either, another oversight)

He may be better than O, but..
He isn't a principled man.

G36's Rule
10-13-2012, 18:17
This whole thing is asinine. Mitt didn't sign the contract, and the contract merely states a right if certain conditions are present.

Nobody but a loon would try to attach any significance to it or try to tie Mitt to it.

G36's Rule
10-13-2012, 18:18
Correct. Abortion is contractually allowed. See we agree.

So you agree it is meaningless and not tied to Mitt?

tsmo1066
10-13-2012, 18:25
This whole smear attack is like trying to claim that someone isn't a Christian if they believe that killing is acceptible in cases of self-defense because the Ten Commandments say "Thou Shalt Not Kill"

This contract allows for abortion only under very specific circumstances - circumstances that even most people who identify themselves as 'pro-life' would agree with.

Lots of desperation and fear in this attack...but no substance.

Jonesee
10-13-2012, 18:25
So you agree it is meaningless and not tied to Mitt?

The article said he paid for it.

The campaign did not deny it. They would have denied it if they could have.

I think dad helped son out, like any good businessman he wanted to make sure he was getting a quality product and put it in the contract.

I would too. Really I would.

I've stirred this GNG topic enough. I will leave it the pros here now.

Flying-Dutchman
10-13-2012, 18:34
The contract specifically allows abortions. That won't square with the right to lifers and the Catholics and evangelical supporters within the party.

My point is Romney does not have strong unwavering principles on key issues.
And Obama changed his stance on Gay Marriage.

The Rev. Billy Graham just endorsed Romney so he is OK with the Evangelicals.

The Democrats would like to distract you with the old divisive issues like Abortion while the Country crashes and burns.

Social issues are not Romney’s pet projects. He wants to fix the County.

Romney is the hardworking “grownup” who wants to fix the economy; let’s give him a chance for 4 years and see what happens. We know what is happening with Obama.

Gallium
10-13-2012, 18:35
The language is not pro-life. The centrists may accept it but no one that is part of the pro-life movement will accept. Nor would the Catholic Church.

Spin it as you wish. But the language is not pro-life.

The language specifically allows abortions.


I know there are a lot of Catholics in the world, but really, in the grand scheme of things, what rational person joins hands with an organization that has




systematically created an environment where YOUNG BOYS are sexually molested for decades, maybe even centuries
Said it is "ok" for GAY PROSTITUTES ONLY to use condoms (current Pope)
For eons (and up to the later part of the 20th century) refused to apologize for putting Galileo on trial (apology issued in 1992), only about 170years after they lifted the ban on Galileo's Dialogue



I am pro-life. I don't believe in taking the lives of other people, but you can bet your bottom nut-dollar if someone is trying to take my life, or rape/kidnap my kid I have no reservations about ending theirs.

Likewise, if my unborn child had (the worst most severe form of) spina bifida, I would have few, if any reservations on terminating that pregnancy.

Fortunately, you don't speak for an entire nation, or for all conservatives, or even for all Christians.

Spiffums
10-13-2012, 18:48
Most "Pro-Life" people are against abortion as a form of birth control. As a limited medical procedure, it is accessible in our modern age.

And why do you care what Mitt does? Abortion is between you and GOD. The procedure should be available and you make the choice.......and you live with the fall out from that.

frank4570
10-13-2012, 18:48
Like it or not, most of America, to include most Republicans AND Democrats, are more moderate than those at the ragged fringes.

Quoted for truth.

G36's Rule
10-13-2012, 18:52
Again, this is a non-issue. It has been out for 3 weeks. The media knows it is meaningless, as does most anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together.

Trew2Life
10-13-2012, 19:00
I don't want to turn this in to a religious issue, but may I ask a question (for clarity) to the pro-lifers and/or theists ??

If birth defects and disease are the wages of sin and disobedience, aren't we defying a higher ordinance if we abort a child who may be inflicted? Perhaps there is a higher purpose to the childs life.

Gallium
10-13-2012, 19:04
I don't want to turn this in to a religious issue, but may I ask a question (for clarity) to the pro-lifers and/or theists ??

If birth defects and disease are the wages of sin and disobedience, aren't we defying a higher ordinance if we abort a child who may be inflicted? Perhaps there is a higher purpose to the childs life.


In all things, we must seek balance. In our own bodies, for example, our cells do their own housekeeping by destroying damaged cells. Someone that cannot find that balance between the divine and pragmatism is barbaric.

Speaking broadly, I am not apologetic for my statements, but I do extend an apology if they cause any consternation.

tsmo1066
10-13-2012, 20:03
I don't want to turn this in to a religious issue, but may I ask a question (for clarity) to the pro-lifers and/or theists ??

If birth defects and disease are the wages of sin and disobedience, aren't we defying a higher ordinance if we abort a child who may be inflicted? Perhaps there is a higher purpose to the childs life.

There are undoubtedly some religious fundamentalists who think this way, but they are not representative of the majority of those who identify themselves as "pro-life" any more than radicals who feel that a minor child should be able to abort an eighth month baby through late-term, partial birth abortion without any form of parental consent are representative of the majority of "pro-choice" adherents.

If you honestly believe that everyone who opposes abortion on demand is doing so because they are uber-religious zealots, then you truly don't understand this issue on any level.

You may as well ask a pro-choice person something like "If you feel that 'viability outside the womb' is the only limit on 'choice' why don't you agree with killing children as old as three years? After all, they can't feed, sustain themselves or survive outside of the womb without constant adult care and sustenance, either."

Halojumper
10-13-2012, 20:15
This is the last thing the GOP nominee needs with less than a month to the election.

I don't know. I think if he would give up his ridiculous anti abortion position, he would like get enough votes to cinch the election.

gjk5
10-13-2012, 20:17
Most "Pro-Life" people are against abortion as a form of birth control. As a limited medical procedure, it is accessible in our modern age.

And why do you care what Mitt does? Abortion is between you and GOD. The procedure should be available and you make the choice.......and you live with the fall out from that.

Yep....

gjk5
10-13-2012, 20:19
I don't know. I think if he would give up his ridiculous anti abortion position, he would like get enough votes to cinch the election.

Yeah, and the Ron Paul retards are gonna get Ron elected.

if someone is hung up enough on abortion to make them vote for Obama over Romney, they are an idiot.

Halojumper
10-13-2012, 20:30
Yeah, and the Ron Paul retards are gonna get Ron elected.

if someone is hung up enough on abortion to make them vote for Obama over Romney, they are an idiot.

I think it's redundant to say that somebody who would vote for O over this issue is an idiot. Anybody who would vote for him for any reason is, but many will for exactly this reason.

Flying-Dutchman
10-13-2012, 21:04
Typical Democrat trickery to distract the voter.

They have nothing to run on. Socialism fails everywhere it is tried; the Soviet Union, China and now Europe.

Abortion is a divisive never ending issue. It is not going away. You will be allowed to kill your baby as there is too much money in it and too many people in the world. No worries.

Obama is a nightmare and a disaster so let’s try to trip up Romney on Abortion.

So now we are entering Great Recession II, $1 trillion per year deficits, 15% U6 unemployment, no ideas, will not work with Congress, new taxes in January 2013…..and you think we are worried about Abortion.

What’s next, the flag burning issue?

Trew2Life
10-14-2012, 00:21
There are undoubtedly some religious fundamentalists who think this way, but they are not representative of the majority of those who identify themselves as "pro-life" any more than radicals who feel that a minor child should be able to abort an eighth month baby through late-term, partial birth abortion without any form of parental consent are representative of the majority of "pro-choice" adherents.

If you honestly believe that everyone who opposes abortion on demand is doing so because they are uber-religious zealots, then you truly don't understand this issue on any level.

You may as well ask a pro-choice person something like "If you feel that 'viability outside the womb' is the only limit on 'choice' why don't you agree with killing children as old as three years? After all, they can't feed, sustain themselves or survive outside of the womb without constant adult care and sustenance, either."

It's funny how people who follow the very basic principles of the Bible, such as the 10 Commandments, are categorized as, 'religious fundamentalists'. I didn't know there was an 'unless clause' at the end of, 'Thou shalt not kill' and the exceptions are growing: rape, incest, detriment to mother, and now add physiological, chromosomal and genetic defects.

It's sad. We marry through 'sickness and health', 'better or worse'. Too bad we don't give birth with the same level of commitment.

I don't read this 'abortion clause' of the contract to be a pro-life statement. Even if you take the centrists' point of view. A physiological, chromosomal, or genetically defected child is not akin to rape, incest, or detriment to mother.

I also find it very, very interesting that 3/5 Romney sons have used in vitro fertilization.

tsmo1066
10-14-2012, 00:28
I don't read this 'abortion clause' of the contract to be a pro-life statement.

That's because you are a rabid partisan who can't see past his own biases.

The overwhelming majority of the folks in America who identify themselves as pro-life don't share your rabid partisanship.

People who ARE capable of seeing both sides of the issue (and that's most of us out there) wouldn't dream of faulting a parent who decided not to carry a baby with severe Spino-bifida or Down Syndrome to term...and that includes most of us who are Democrats AND Republicans.

fnfalman
10-14-2012, 00:29
Quoted for truth.

Too bad that these moderate Americans don't vote for a good candidate but instead keep on moving with the rest of the lemmings and vote partisan.

Trew2Life
10-14-2012, 00:43
That's because you are a rabid partisan who can't see past his own biases.

The overwhelming majority of the folks in America who identify themselves as pro-life don't share your rabid partisanship.

A majority of people doing something one way doesn't necessarily make it the right way to do it.

You should hope that if/when you come before your creator to answer for your actions you have a better reply than, 'everyone else was doing it, too'.

tsmo1066
10-14-2012, 00:47
A majority of people doing something one way doesn't necessarily make it the right way to do it.

You should hope that if/when you come before your creator to answer for your actions you have a better reply than, 'everyone else was doing it, too'.

When I pass, I'll be able to say to whatever entity (if any) awaits me on the other side that I followed my conscience.

That's better than quoting Democratic talking points and saying "My political party told me to do things that way."

Look outside of your paper bag...it's a big world out there and it is comprised of more than political party sound-bytes. Most folks are capable of seeing that, and hopefully one day you will be able to as well.

:wavey:

FCastle88
10-14-2012, 01:26
It's funny how people who follow the very basic principles of the Bible, such as the 10 Commandments, are categorized as, 'religious fundamentalists'. I didn't know there was an 'unless clause' at the end of, 'Thou shalt not kill' and the exceptions are growing: rape, incest, detriment to mother, and now add physiological, chromosomal and genetic defects.

It's sad. We marry through 'sickness and health', 'better or worse'. Too bad we don't give birth with the same level of commitment.

I don't read this 'abortion clause' of the contract to be a pro-life statement. Even if you take the centrists' point of view. A physiological, chromosomal, or genetically defected child is not akin to rape, incest, or detriment to mother.

I also find it very, very interesting that 3/5 Romney sons have used in vitro fertilization.
The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" was originally Thou shalt not murder, it was changed somewhere in translation. How can you say God commanded not to kill at all, when he commanded entire tribes, including women and children, wiped out because they worshiped other gods? The old testament is full of killing, if anything the Christians who claim that Christianity is all about love and peace are the ones who are twisting the basics of their religion.

As for the abortion clause in the contract, perhaps it was meant to keep the surrogate from having an abortion by giving that choice to the parents, and the language about allowing it under certain circumstances was included as an appeasement of some sort.

frizz
10-14-2012, 03:11
You are so wrong about me.
I am firmly pro-choice. But I work with contracts very day. The contract overrides all else and all other intentions of the parties.

The contract specifically allows abortions. That won't square with the right to lifers and the Catholics and evangelical supporters within the party.


My point is Romney does not have strong unwavering principles on key issues.

The funny thing about this clause (which isn't going to help Romney one bit) is that it doesn't look enforceable. There's no way I see a judge enforcing specific performance for her to get an abortion or to not get an abortion.

frizz
10-14-2012, 03:36
O can't use this against him if that is what you are worried about. O is good with killing a viable livable child through a botched abortion.

:upeyes:

When a candidate wants to throw mud of this sort, the campaign has an "independent" organization sling it by proxy.

Flying-Dutchman
10-14-2012, 05:12
:upeyes:

When a candidate wants to throw mud of this sort, the campaign has an "independent" organization sling it by proxy.
And the right has these independent organizations too that cover Obama issues but get little play like his murdered gay lovers, his Chicago gay bathhouse membership with Rahm Emanuel, his drug use, his ties with radicals.

Obama loves partial birth abortion. That is a known fact.

Flying-Dutchman
10-14-2012, 05:14
The funny thing about this clause (which isn't going to help Romney one bit) is that it doesn't look enforceable. There's no way I see a judge enforcing specific performance for her to get an abortion or to not get an abortion.
What this tells me is how these Obama people are the lowest of the low. They have nothing to run on.

To dig up the most personal private legal papers involving a candidate’s family member tells you more about Obama than Romney.

This is just boilerplate anyway used in every contract of this sort.

dango
10-14-2012, 05:28
Please read the article. Mitt paid for the surrogate contract.

And the language is not pro-life language.

I've said it before. Mitt is not a man of strong guiding principles.

There is hope...............!

ChuteTheMall
10-14-2012, 05:29
if someone is hung up enough on abortion to make them vote for Obama over Romney, they are an idiot.

Quoted for truth.

When I pass, I'll be able to say to whatever entity (if any) awaits me on the other side that I followed my conscience.



Gee, I hope you are good enough.:wavey:
I'm not perfect, so my only defense is the shed blood of Christ, who died to take the heat for our sins.

dherloc
10-14-2012, 05:51
The language is not pro-life. The centrists may accept it but no one that is part of the pro-life movement will accept. Nor would the Catholic Church.

Spin it as you wish. But the language is not pro-life.

The language specifically allows abortions.

Last I heard, Romney was not Catholic.

Here is the Mormon Church's position:

In 1973, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released the following statement regarding abortion, which is still applicable today:
“The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer.”

Bren
10-14-2012, 05:55
I thought the Romney's were supposed to be pro-life? The language used in this 'Gestational Carrier Agreement' between Tagg Romney and the surrogate mother isn't 'pro-life' language.

This is the last thing the GOP nominee needs with less than a month to the election.

Tagg Romney is an adult who isn't running for office.

You, however, are typical of the desperate and unethical democrats.

series1811
10-14-2012, 06:00
What office is Tagg running for?

You have him mixed up with Democrats' kids. Rebublicans' kids can be scrutinized, examined, surveilled, followed, and spied on as much as possible.

tsmo1066
10-14-2012, 15:31
Gee, I hope you are good enough.:wavey:
I'm not perfect, so my only defense is the shed blood of Christ, who died to take the heat for our sins.

I'm not perfect by any means, either. I'll be able to say I followed my conscience, but whether The Maker buys that line or not is another matter entirely! :supergrin: