dUSt Posted November 2, 2012 Author Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351869929' post='2502934'] [b]October 10, 2012[/b] "There's [b]no legislation with regards to abortion [/b]that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda," [/quote] Wow dude. You said he said: "he would not do anything related to abortion in his administration". And you post this quote as your proof: [i]"There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda"[/i]... Ignoring the fact that[b] in the same interview[/b] he said he would reinstate the Mexico City policy that bans U.S. foreign aid dollars from being used to do abortions. I'm done with you. You are not being honest, it is now clear you are not interested in an unbiased dialogue, and your integrity has been compromised.
Anomaly Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351869929' post='2502934'] [b]October 10, 2012[/b] "There's [b]no legislation with regards to abortion [/b]that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda," [/quote]Didn't you just recently point out that there was no pending legislation regarding abortion. So what's wrong with what Romney said? Also, keep in mind, it's a close race, so Romney isn't going to say anything that is going to make him lose the women's vote because the Dems are going to immediately put it on the TV as Romeny attacking women.
dUSt Posted November 2, 2012 Author Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351871282' post='2502946'] Didn't you just recently point out that there was no pending legislation regarding abortion. So what's wrong with what Romney said? [/quote] There is nothing wrong with what Romney said. Al is using that single quote as the foundation for saying he will not do anything related to abortion in his administration. Al knows better. I am now convinced he is intentionally misleading people.
Aloysius Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 there is no pending legislation with regard to abortion because no one's seriously offering it, and they'll be less likely to offer it with Romney at the helm. I don't think it's good that there's no pending abortion related legislation, I just think it's a sad fact. dUSt, I am not being dishonest. the quote clearly says he doesn't plan any abortion-related legislation, the fact that he contradicts himself is his own problem, not mine. I know all about the Mexico City Policy and have continuously pointed to the studies that show that the Mexico City Policy does nothing to reduce abortions, many studies actually show them increasing during times when the Mexico City Policy is in place.
Aloysius Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 My post included another post wherein he said Roe v. Wade is the settled law... he said something similar before defending his pro-choice positions in a previous race. Yes, I know he has contradicted himself and said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. The fact that he contradicts himself does not take away from him making those statements. The pro-choice pro-democrats interpret these contradictions as attempts to mislead voters into thinking he's not as pro-life as he really is. I have explained again and again that it's not just these quotes, it's these quotes coupled with his longstanding pro-choice record.
Anomaly Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351872405' post='2502955'] There is nothing wrong with what Romney said. Al is using that single quote as the foundation for saying he will not do anything related to abortion in his administration. Al knows better. I am now convinced he is intentionally misleading people. [/quote]I think it's fairer to not speculate on anyone's intent, either Al's or Romney's. I think Al's intent is to differentiate the difference between political equivocating, and the Church's stance on abortion. I think Romney is trying to get elected and playing both sides, exactly like Obama and every other politician in a close race. It's an unfortunate aspect of political reality and what colors fickle voter's opinion. A grain of salt, benefit of the doubt... What are the Party's platforms? The platforms are broad ideals that reflect the ideology and wants of the voting supporters. Looking at the two Party's platforms, what the party's have done, and the opinion of what matters to the voters who support them are all reasonable considerations to fiddler and evaluate what the two politicians are saying. Both men are appealing to the marginally opinionated voters at this stage in the game. They cannot issue bold statements or take definitive stances because they would be an immediate turn-off to the "undecided" that's crucial. Edited November 2, 2012 by Anomaly
Aloysius Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 btw, I know it's a very common thing, but I think we should try to refrain from accusations that the other side is being dishonest when they fail to follow the same line of reasoning that we do. I actually missed the link you were making in your previous post to the inclusion of the Mexico City Policy issue in that article. If I had noticed it, I would have addressed it in the way I addressed it in my subsequent post rather than just re-posting the quote. I realize that to someone who understood that you were making that link to the Mexico City Policy being included in the article (which I didn't get, I was unsure why you were using my quote as evidence that I was self-contradicting), my re-statement of the quote would have been a very annoying response, so I apologize for the confusion
dUSt Posted November 2, 2012 Author Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351872521' post='2502957'] dUSt, I am not being dishonest. the quote clearly says he doesn't plan any abortion-related legislation, [/quote] That is drastically different than "he would not do anything related to abortion in his administration". You are misleading. Period.
dUSt Posted November 2, 2012 Author Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351872740' post='2502958'] I have explained again and again that it's not just these quotes, it's these quotes coupled with his longstanding pro-choice record. [/quote] He use to be pro-choice man. One does not flip a switch and go from 100% pro-choice to 100% pro-life. Conversion is a process. You are unwilling to give him the benefit of the doubt. Instead, you bash his conversion. Please, never volunteer for any pro-life events. I hate to think of how you'll treat the women who use to be pro-choice.
Anomaly Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351872521' post='2502957'] there is no pending legislation with regard to abortion because no one's seriously offering it, and they'll be less likely to offer it with Romney at the helm. [/quote]You keep bringing this up to tear down Romney, but what's the point and effect? It's either R or D that will have the significant political power with the Presidency in 2013-2016. So if the Democrats and Obama have the Presidency for the next four years, there's any hope that it's more likely any legislation will be offered? And if it's likely, considering the Dem party's explicit ideology that Government SHOULD NOT restrict abortion and restriction should be vigorously defended against, there is any hope it could pass? That ideology is the reason why the Mexico City Policy is toothless. [quote]dUSt, I am not being dishonest. the quote clearly says he doesn't plan any abortion-related legislation, the fact that he contradicts himself is his own problem, not mine. I know all about the Mexico City Policy and have continuously pointed to the studies that show that the Mexico City Policy does nothing to reduce abortions, many studies actually show them increasing during times when the Mexico City Policy is in place. [/quote]Which Party's ideology forces comprimise in legislation like this that makes it a political show? Pro-life proponents propose legislation (Repub's look good submitting it because a significant amount of their supporters want it), and the Pro-abortion proponents rip the teeth out (Dem's look good neutering it because a significant amount of their supporters don't want Government Restrictions). You are advocating crippling the Republican party because it isn't pro-life enough, but the result is, power goes to the Democrats who are adamently against Government restriction. I don't think you are being intellectually honest in evaluating the real world consequences.
Aloysius Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 You've gotta be kidding me dUSt. Stop taking this so personally. You realize you just told me not to volunteer at pro-life events because my mistrust of politicians clearly indicates I will not accept people who used to be pro-choice? I am fully willing to accept a convert from a pro-choice position; but I will absolutely be critical of a former pro-choice politician if they continue to say things that sound pro-choice after their conversion, especially if their conversion looks like it was done for political gain. Alright, so it appears in that interview he was making a dichotomy between "legislation" and "executive order". That's something that I didn't quite notice before, it's easy to hear the statement that one doesn't foresee any abortion related legislation and take it to mean that there will be nothing at all abortion related. Fine. He doesn't want any abortion-related legislation, but he will use an executive order on the Mexico City Policy. It's a pretty subtle distinction he made so that he could make a statement that would sound pretty broadly re-assuring to pro-choicers (even if they generally reject it and don't believe him on it).
Aloysius Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351873943' post='2502974'] You keep bringing this up to tear down Romney, but what's the point and effect? It's either R or D that will have the significant political power with the Presidency in 2013-2016. So if the Democrats and Obama have the Presidency for the next four years, there's any hope that it's more likely any legislation will be offered? And if it's likely, considering the Dem party's explicit ideology that Government SHOULD NOT restrict abortion and restriction should be vigorously defended against, there is any hope it could pass? That ideology is the reason why the Mexico City Policy is toothless. Which Party's ideology forces comprimise in legislation like this that makes it a political show? Pro-life proponents propose legislation (Repub's look good submitting it because a significant amount of their supporters want it), and the Pro-abortion proponents rip the teeth out (Dem's look good neutering it because a significant amount of their supporters don't want Government Restrictions). You are advocating crippling the Republican party because it isn't pro-life enough, but the result is, power goes to the Democrats who are adamently against Government restriction. I don't think you are being intellectually honest in evaluating the real world consequences. [/quote] we've been through this a thousand times Anomaly. I reject many of your premises and we've debated them pretty thoroughly... I don't think the Republican Party gaining power under Romney will result in more pro-life stuff being done; I think it will result in less openness to pro-life positions within the Republican Party, with little to nothing actually being done under the Romney administration.
Anomaly Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351874328' post='2502978'] we've been through this a thousand times Anomaly. I reject many of your premises and we've debated them pretty thoroughly... I don't think the Republican Party gaining power under Romney will result in more pro-life stuff being done; I think it will result in less openness to pro-life positions within the Republican Party, with little to nothing actually being done under the Romney administration. [/quote]I know. I'm stubborn, and think you're wrong and think I'm right. I've conceded defeat in the face of your stubborness and am hopeful others may be reading these threads and give my points serious consideration and come to agree with me to the benefit of the pro-life movement in the political arena in the next four years. You've made your point, why don't you give it a rest?
dUSt Posted November 2, 2012 Author Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351874135' post='2502977'] He doesn't want any abortion-related legislation, but he will use an executive order on the Mexico City Policy. [/quote] Lol. You're unbelievable man. [i]"He doesn't want any abortion-related legislation."[/i] That is also dishonest and misleading. If this has become a joke to you now, just say it.
Aloysius Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 Because I'm in this study center and these Spanish guys keep whispering loudly so I'm too distracted to finish reading this Malinowski excerpt. lol. I get it man, I think we've said all we can say and just need to let our arguments stand for the general readers of the thread. For what it's worth, I think your posts have represented your position very well, man.
Aloysius Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351874815' post='2502983'] Lol. You're unbelievable man. [i]"He doesn't want any abortion-related legislation."[/i] That is also dishonest and misleading. If this has become a joke to you now, just say it. [/quote] umm.. that's exactly what he said in the quote. he contrasted "legislation" with the executive orders he would pass which was not legislation; I was admitting that I was wrong to say "nothing abortion related" because he was making the distinction between legislation and executive orders when he said that. sheesh.
dUSt Posted November 2, 2012 Author Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351874959' post='2502985'] umm.. that's exactly what he said in the quote. [/quote] No, it's not. I'm not going to keep this going with you. I trust people will read his official stances and not form their opinion of him based on outdated quotes taken out of context, as you have done. Romney's stance, color-coded for better reading comprehension: “I will not forget that a strong country needs more than a strong economy. It needs strong families and strong values as well... President Obama once said that decisions about abortion are ‘above his pay grade.’ I’ll never be so cavalier about life. I will be a pro-life president... [color=#ff0000][b]I will reinstate the Mexico City Policy[/b][/color].[b][color=#ff8c00] I’ll cut off funding for the United Nations Population Fund[/color][/b], which supports China’s abhorrent one child policy. [color=#800080][b]I’ll ensure that abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood get no taxpayer dollars[/b][/color]. And [color=#008000][b]I’ll reverse Obama regulations that attack our religious freedom and threaten innocent life[/b][/color]. I’ll nominate judges who respect the Constitution, are proponents of judicial restraint, and know the difference between personal opinion and law."
dUSt Posted November 4, 2012 Author Posted November 4, 2012 “There is an urgent need for the lay faithful, in cooperation with those of other faiths or none, to impress upon our elected representatives the vital importance of religious liberty for a free society. On November 6, we have an opportunity—and an obligation—to do just that.†[b]- Cardinal Francis George[/b]
Recommended Posts