Now that the official Republican platform wants a Constitutional Amendment to ban ALL abortions (even to save the life of the mother), will you be voting for Romney? (Under their standards, even birth control pills and diaphragms will be illegal.)
M. Aronson
2012/08/24 03:02:44
|
|
|||||
|
38 votes
|
|
33% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
3% | |||
|
5 votes
|
|
4% | |||
|
66 votes
|
|
57% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
3% | |||
Republican drafters of their party’s 2012 platform reaffirmed support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion that would allow no exception for terminating pregnancies caused by rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.
Although Romney personally says that he would be in favor of exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, that goes against his party leaders and also his Vice Presidential pick. Since Romney is known to be a notorious flip-flopper when it comes to just about every issue, it is reasonable to assume that he wouldn't hold out for those exceptions when faced with pressure from either his party or the public, either.
Top Opinion
-
♥dreamer-leigh♥ 2012/08/24 03:47:44I will vote for Romney no matter what.
+17I am pro-life..regardless, and my state is one of the highest receiving government entitlements and fundings for abortions..make me sick and most are repeat patients. Murder is murder and having an abortion is murder. Take precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancies...these innocent lives deserve better than to end up in a trash can! It is a human life!
I feel Gary Johnson is better for the country than both Pres. Obama and Romney.
P.S. Voting for Romney to vote Obama out is not going to cut it. If you vote for Romney, vote for Romney because you feel he will do a better job than Obama and that he has better ideas.
For now, as a 17 year old, if I had the chance to vote, I would have voted for Gary Johnson but he has no chance of winning.
As for abortion, don't you right wingers feel you guys are going too far with this Constitutional Amendment to ban ALL abortions? Don't women have a right to choose? It is their bodies after all. I just want to hear from the right wingers on this one.
Something you should know about the Ryan economic plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Check out the graph, it alone says so very much.
Said amendment must also contain language to separate public and private lives for privacy purposes. What non-public figures do is not the business of the paparazzi, entertainment news, etc. unless the objects of the attention make a positive affirmation that they may be photographed and recorded and have such published on any and all media. This would be a person's "personal sphere" as opposed to one's "public sphere".
Violations of the "personal sphere" would be jail and fines of no less than 30 days and $3000 per instance. This would reduce the paparazzi gangs hounding celebrities in their homes, on vacation, etc. They, and anyone else (with exception of public figures like politicians) would be in the "public sphere" automatically only at public events in which they are taking an active part.
Politicians and other high profile people whose actions can and do affect the lives of others would not have as many protections under the "personal sphere". What they do wi...
Said amendment must also contain language to separate public and private lives for privacy purposes. What non-public figures do is not the business of the paparazzi, entertainment news, etc. unless the objects of the attention make a positive affirmation that they may be photographed and recorded and have such published on any and all media. This would be a person's "personal sphere" as opposed to one's "public sphere".
Violations of the "personal sphere" would be jail and fines of no less than 30 days and $3000 per instance. This would reduce the paparazzi gangs hounding celebrities in their homes, on vacation, etc. They, and anyone else (with exception of public figures like politicians) would be in the "public sphere" automatically only at public events in which they are taking an active part.
Politicians and other high profile people whose actions can and do affect the lives of others would not have as many protections under the "personal sphere". What they do within their their homes and families, that do not affect people outside their family and friends, would be "private sphere" all else would be public sphere. Such people have no right to the same expectation to privacy as the common person. Their actions affect us all, so we should be aware of what they are up to and doing. In that way they would better be kept in check. This includes any organization that "assists" such persons; their members and donors would all be required to be publicly named so they cannot make anonymous donations to causes that are against the interests of The People and the USA.
Those individuals accused of crimes would be out of bounds, their names withheld from the public so as to ensure that they get a fair hearing. Once their cases have been been though the Justice system and they have been found guilty, then their names and their crimes would be fair game for the media, as they have lost any reasonable expectation of privacy. No special considerations allowed based on age, and no exceptions made for any individual or group to save them from the "damage" done to their lives, because we can be sure that they have damaged other people's lives equally or worse.
Should this be worded more carefully? Yes, but the general idea is sound.
http://politicalticker.blogs....
Can you show me where your post is correct?
"we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."
I guess you aren't aware of the facts of how birth control pills work. They make the uterus an "inhospitable" place for the zygote to "latch onto" and start growing. In effect, the pills turn the uterus into an abortifacient - it effectively "aborts" the zygote so it can't grow. It leaves the woman's body via the usual menstrual discharge. Make it a law that we are human beings from the moment of conception, and birth control pills become illegal.
Oh - I admit that I erred when I mentioned diaphragms. Not that anyone uses them any more, anyway. (Although if this current movement continues unstopped, one day we may very well see that ANY method of preventing sperm from fertilizing eggs could become illegal, too!)
Behind this debate is the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion. Roe was based in part on the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to privacy, which the Court ruled was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” According to the ruling, a woman’s right to abortion outweighed the rights of a nonviable fetus and prohibited state interference. Even after viability, however, when the fetus could survive outside of the womb, the Court ruled that states must allow abortions that could save women’s lives. In 1992 the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, maintaining a woman’s fundamental right to abortion.
Be nice if we could create a setup for those poor women to get safe abortions for little or no money. Perhaps a Nonprofit organization that provides transportation and such, to and from. It could be done.
I can find no evidence other than reposrters saying that it is.
The republican party list no official platform as of yet, and are still taking suggestions. The info you listed is one of the things under consideration.
Abortion is murder. Even in the case of rape it amounts to summary execution of a *child* for a thing that an *adult* did.
And I don't see the original poster disavowing the Obama position: abortion on demand, at any time, and without apology.
Or the Boxer position: a baby isn't a person until mother brings the baby home.
News flash. God is Real. And so shall be the Great White Throne Judgment.
This has nothing to do with God. This has to do with the USA which is based on the Constitution. You may believe what you want. You may not force your beliefs upon the rest of us.
Oh, ever hear of the Treaty of Tripoli? If not you need to look it up and read Article 11. Heck, let me give you a hand... http://www.earlyamerica.com/r...
And that does not excuse the murderous act that abortion is.
You are NOT old enough to remember girls dying in back alleys from botched abortions, because it wasn't happening. It is merely inflammatory rhetoric espoused by some, and I defy you to find me newspaper articles (from a credible news source- not ABC, CBS, or NBC) that shows a pattern of "girls dying in back alleys from botched abortions" before Roe v. Wade. You will not find any such information, because it isn't true. It is a BS narrative from the pro abortion crowd. Not pro choice, but pro abortion, and there is a huge difference. You and your ilk have the sickest brain that somehow concludes that a woman is actually empowered WHEN she chooses abortion over carrying to term.
Once again, I am thankful that this is a Constitutional Republic and not a Christian Nation (which would be like Iran: a Theocratic Republic). Our laws are not biblically based, and are not supposed to be. If you think this is a Christian Nation then you need to read the Constitution and learn just what it says about Treaties followed by reading the Treaty of Tripoli, specifically Article 11.
I find it laughable, HYSTERICAL that your meme shows the Constitution under the Dems side. Hahahahahahahaha. The Left tries every two step dance around the Constitiution. Even our very own President said the Constitution is a "charter of negative liberties", he sees it an issue that Government can't just do what it wants. What a clown.