Mitt Romney declaring he's Pro-choice

[Deleted]

www.upworthy.com/wouldnt-it-be-crazy-if-we-had-footage-of-romney-denouncing-his-own-pro-life-agen

[heightsyankee]

So many reactions to choose from. I think I'll go with this:

[IIOY]

All things considered, I suspect this is the least of his concerns.

[pedanticwench]

Although I know it's more than likely a political move on his part, couldn't this change in ideology/beliefs be attributed to life experiences and/or education on the subject at hand?

I mean, we were willing to give Obama a pass on his stance on gay marriage because his change in belief has a positive effect, according to what most of us believe.

[heightsyankee]

I don't agree, pw. I think he has a John McCain problem. He wants to win so bad that he is actually putting his own beliefs on this issue on the back burner to tow the party line. As he says in the video, he has been pro-choice since his mother ran as a pro-choice candidate. He won the governorship of MA based partially on this. Now, he's pandering to the super-right to try and win. It's sad, really.

[Deleted]

Jul 27, 2012 10:54:19 GMT -5 pedanticwench said:

Although I know it's more than likely a political move on his part, couldn't this change in ideology/beliefs be attributed to life experiences and/or education on the subject at hand?

I mean, we were willing to give Obama a pass on his stance on gay marriage because his change in belief has a positive effect, according to what most of us believe.

I think people can change their beliefs, but I think there are statistics showing that people tend to only change their beliefs in one direction.

You don't find very many people going from pro-gay marriage to pro "traditional" marriage and I don't think you find many people going from pro-choice to pro-fetus as you will find many are pro-fetus and change to pro-choice (not my body, not my choice to make for others)

[Deleted]

Jul 27, 2012 10:56:49 GMT -5 heightsyankee said:

I don't agree, pw. I think he has a John McCain problem. He wants to win so bad that he is actually putting his own beliefs on this issue on the back burner to tow the party line. As he says in the video, he has been pro-choice since his mother ran as a pro-choice candidate. He won the governorship of MA based partially on this. Now, he's pandering to the super-right to try and win. It's sad, really.

I agree with this assessment too.

I think he'll say whatever is necessary to get elected not necessarily what he believes.

[ttt]

Jul 27, 2012 10:54:19 GMT -5 pedanticwench said:

Although I know it's more than likely a political move on his part, couldn't this change in ideology/beliefs be attributed to life experiences and/or education on the subject at hand?

I mean, we were willing to give Obama a pass on his stance on gay marriage because his change in belief has a positive effect, according to what most of us believe.

Well to be fair, I think Obamas stance on gay marriage was politically calculated bullshut too.

[pedanticwench]

Jul 27, 2012 10:59:32 GMT -5 ttt said:

Jul 27, 2012 10:54:19 GMT -5 pedanticwench said:

Although I know it's more than likely a political move on his part, couldn't this change in ideology/beliefs be attributed to life experiences and/or education on the subject at hand?

I mean, we were willing to give Obama a pass on his stance on gay marriage because his change in belief has a positive effect, according to what most of us believe.

Well to be fair, I think Obamas stance on gay marriage was politically calculated bullshut too.

No, I agree with you.

[charminglife]

This is just depressing to watch.

[lys]

Personally being pro life and sill supporting pro choice legislation is common.

[heightsyankee]

Jul 27, 2012 11:56:28 GMT -5 lys said:

Personally being pro life and sill supporting pro choice legislation is common.

Except now he is campaigning on wanting to roll back Roe.

[binichic]

Jul 27, 2012 11:57:30 GMT -5 heightsyankee said:

Jul 27, 2012 11:56:28 GMT -5 lys said:

Personally being pro life and sill supporting pro choice legislation is common.

Except now he is campaigning on wanting to roll back Roe.

I don't know why politicians even bother. It ain't gonna happen. They should focus on the more pressing issues at hand (i.e. the economy, health care, etc.)

[y4m]

Jul 27, 2012 10:57:40 GMT -5 @septimus said:

You don't find very many people going from pro-gay marriage to pro "traditional" marriage and I don't think you find many people going from pro-choice to pro-fetus as you will find many are pro-fetus and change to pro-choice (not my body, not my choice to make for others)

I agree with the first, but not the second. Society is generally progressing toward supporting gay marriage, so it would be weird for someone to go the opposite direction. Society is not generally progressing toward the pro-choice side of the spectrum--to the extent that there's any movement at all, it's the opposite.

[heyjude]

Well yeah. He was for abortion, before he was against it.

Der.

[Deleted]

Jul 27, 2012 12:07:05 GMT -5 binichic said:

Jul 27, 2012 11:57:30 GMT -5 heightsyankee said:

Except now he is campaigning on wanting to roll back Roe.

I don't know why politicians even bother. It ain't gonna happen. They should focus on the more pressing issues at hand (i.e. the economy, health care, etc.)

I think you are kidding yourself, although after Roberts bold move on the ACA I could see him keeping it legal if it comes before the SCOTUS again, but it will be for some new legal reason, not based on privacy.

[ringstrue]

I'm totaly blanking on how someone w/o a uterus can be "personally pro-life" in any sense of the term.

[ttt]

Jul 27, 2012 12:22:55 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

I'm totaly blanking on how someone w/o a uterus can be "personally pro-life" in any sense of the term.

Good point. Romney would never personally have an abortion?

Being "personally pro life but pro choice for others" makes zero sense anyway. You believe abortion should be illegal for you specifically but legal for others?

[soontobeka]

[/quote]

In regards to this poll, I think the way that question is worded would lead even those who say they are pro-life for themselves but pro-choice for others to answer "pro-life" and in turn not be a true depiction of where people stand on the abortion issue.

[y4m]

Jul 27, 2012 12:32:55 GMT -5 soontobeka said:

In regards to this poll, I think the way that question is worded would lead even those who say they are pro-life for themselves but pro-choice for others to answer "pro-life" and in turn not be a true depiction of where people stand on the abortion issue.[/quote]

Do you prefer this one? Shows basically the same trend.

[JLN]

Mittens flip flops more than a fish out of water on a hot boat dock.

[chichimi]

Jul 27, 2012 12:26:47 GMT -5 ttt said:

Jul 27, 2012 12:22:55 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

I'm totaly blanking on how someone w/o a uterus can be "personally pro-life" in any sense of the term.

Good point. Romney would never personally have an abortion?

Being "personally pro life but pro choice for others" makes zero sense anyway. You believe abortion should be illegal for you specifically but legal for others?

When men say this, they may be referring to not wanting to abort their own child despite the fact that they would not carry it.
As for the second point, this is thrown about around here and I think we all know this is not what anyone means. They are just specifying that they would not get an abortion themselves, an important distinction to many.

[aurora]

Jul 27, 2012 12:49:18 GMT -5 @chichimi said:

Jul 27, 2012 12:26:47 GMT -5 ttt said:

...
As for the second point, this is thrown about around here and I think we all know this is not what anyone means. They are just specifying that they would not get an abortion themselves, an important distinction to many.

Yes...but according to the commonly-used definition that position makes you pro-choice. I don't know if I would get an abortion myself, but I very firmly believe that I (and politicians) should not get to make that decision for others. Hence pro-choice.

[soontobeka]

Y4M- Maybe I am reading the trends wrong but they do not seem to be so similar to me. The pro-life v pro-choice one is 50% v 41% respectively, while the legal v illegal ends up being 77% favor legal abortions while only 20% favor making abortions illegal. (I combined the two legal options for the 77%). The legality one seems to be much more consistent over time versus the fluctuations in the pro life v pro-choice one.

[eclaires]

Jul 27, 2012 12:26:47 GMT -5 ttt said:

Jul 27, 2012 12:22:55 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

I'm totaly blanking on how someone w/o a uterus can be "personally pro-life" in any sense of the term.

Good point. Romney would never personally have an abortion?

Being "personally pro life but pro choice for others" makes zero sense anyway. You believe abortion should be illegal for you specifically but legal for others?

That's not what that means, though... at least IMO.

For me, it's not about legality. I don't think abortion should be illegal. Ever. In fact, I would go so far as to say I think abortion should be unrestricted. I would only change that stance if abortion was unrestricted and we saw a huge uptick in 30w+ abortions for no reason (which I don't think would happen).

Personally, though, and based on my religious beliefs, I think abortion is taking a life. To me, it is, in a way, murder. But I don't think that should be legislated, and more importantly, I think the mother's choice/needs/whatever trumps whatever life the fetus has.

I describe myself as pro-choice though, b/c IMO, pro-choice/pro-life refers to the legality of abortion.

As for Mittens, I've decided I'm refusing to even give politicians the attention they want for their views on abortion (for or against). I'm convinced they all do it to just rile us up and distract us from the other issues. So if he wants to change his mind every .3 seconds on abortion, he can go right ahead and enjoy the Republican Kerry flip flop ads the Dems throw at him.

[y4m]

Jul 27, 2012 13:07:39 GMT -5 soontobeka said:

Y4M- Maybe I am reading the trends wrong but they do not seem to be so similar to me. The pro-life v pro-choice one is 50% v 41% respectively, while the legal v illegal ends up being 77% favor legal abortions while only 20% favor making abortions illegal. (I combined the two legal options for the 77%). The legality one seems to be much more consistent over time versus the fluctuations in the pro life v pro-choice one.

My point is it isn't moving, versus gay marriage which clearly is. Both those charts show pretty stable viewpoints.

[ttt]

Jul 27, 2012 12:49:18 GMT -5 @chichimi said:

Jul 27, 2012 12:26:47 GMT -5 ttt said:

Good point. Romney would never personally have an abortion?

Being "personally pro life but pro choice for others" makes zero sense anyway. You believe abortion should be illegal for you specifically but legal for others?

When men say this, they may be referring to not wanting to abort their own child despite the fact that they would not carry it.
As for the second point, this is thrown about around here and I think we all know this is not what anyone means. They are just specifying that they would not get an abortion themselves, an important distinction to many.

That also makes no sense. You personally believe women should have the right to choose abortion or not, except for the woman who's carrying your child. So, you are *not* pro choice. Or, you believe that woman should still have the legal right to choose abortion, in which case you *are* pro choice.

Pro choice =/= pro abortion. Sometimes the result of the choice is to *not* have an abortion. But the key is being able to choose for yourself.

[Deleted]

Jul 27, 2012 13:11:40 GMT -5 y4m said:

Jul 27, 2012 13:07:39 GMT -5 soontobeka said:

Y4M- Maybe I am reading the trends wrong but they do not seem to be so similar to me. The pro-life v pro-choice one is 50% v 41% respectively, while the legal v illegal ends up being 77% favor legal abortions while only 20% favor making abortions illegal. (I combined the two legal options for the 77%). The legality one seems to be much more consistent over time versus the fluctuations in the pro life v pro-choice one.

My point is it isn't moving, versus gay marriage which clearly is. Both those charts show pretty stable viewpoints.

It may not have been clear but my point in my orginal comment wasn't that pro-choice/pro-life was moving, but that when someone does change their opinion it is usually from pro-life to pro-choice and rarely does someone's opinion change the other direction.

[laurenpetro]

great. so now we have yet another election season with the term "flip-flopper" being thrown around. i HATE that fucking term.

[y4m]

Jul 27, 2012 14:22:00 GMT -5 @septimus said:

It may not have been clear but my point in my orginal comment wasn't that pro-choice/pro-life was moving, but that when someone does change their opinion it is usually from pro-life to pro-choice and rarely does someone's opinion change the other direction.

But what evidence do you have for that viewpoint? I can see how changing views about gay marriage only go one direction because of movement within society. I see no reason people who change their views about abortion would only change from pro-life to pro-choice. What makes you think that?