Quote:
Originally Posted by MissBrattified
Romney is no worse than my husband. My husband and I vehemently disagree over the "mother's life" clause. He has told me in no uncertain terms that if HE ever had to choose between me and an unborn baby, he would pick me. As persuasive as I am data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e9254/e9254d17e122a57255ae1d6189a027a314042c32" alt="Big Grin" , I haven't been able to budge him on that one.
|
You missed my point. I never mentioned the Mothers "life". I myself am for the exception to save the Mothers LIFE.
My wife was on the cutting edge of the pro life movement for years being imprisoned in various states for preaching the gospel.
How the devil works is by making a clause for the womans HEALTH. That is much different than her LIFE. The health clause means basically ANYTHING. It is as if there are no restrictions at all.
Her "health" can mean she does not like her breasts to sag. It can mean she may have stress because she has to care for children. It may hurt her mental well being because she may have to give up time she likes to use for other things to train up a child. See?
The HEALTH of the mother is much different than the LIFE of the mother. In the abortion debate this is how the liberals pacify the people deceiving them into thinking the two things are the same.
The health of the mother exception could mean ANYTHING one chooses it to mean it is just a smokescreen for unjustified homicide of the child.
In other words Romney has come full circle from pro choice to pro life now to the very safe politically correct position of exception for the HEALTH of the mother. I think that fits very nicely with the pro choice position.
No I wont walk across the street to vote for a man who ok with murdering the unborn and giving innocent children away to "gay" couples.
It will be interesting to see what Paul Ryan now says. Im sure he has opposed the HEALTH exception if he has followed the battle over the years.