I Was Wrong About Mitt Romney

[Mike Griffith]

It seems that the people who are defending Romney here are not aware of the factually invalid nature of the arguments that Romney made in defense of his vote to convict on the abuse of power charge. As I mention in the OP, one of the reasons I find Romney's vote so appalling is that he defended it by repeating arguments that the defense soundly refuted during the trial. It's as if Romney missed, or just ignored, all of the defense team's presentations.

The transcript of the defense presentations runs into hundreds of pages, but here is an excellent condensed version of the defense's case published by the White House:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u ... -Trump.pdf

[simpleton]

Mitt is a disgrace (IMO) to his ancestors, and to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And this goes back to way before Trump was ever a threat to him and his career. Any LDS that will compromise the Gospel and his principles for personal gain is a traitor. He ran for governor on a pro abortion and pro gay platform in Massachusetts. Forget about his anti Trump vote, that was nothing compared to being pro abortion and sodomy.

[SempiternalHarbinger]

as one person put it -
quote
"One thing you can say about Trump is he is a man of his word. You cannot say that about Mitt Romney"

Mitt Romney says LDS Leaders are Pro Choice

How Mitt Romney Helped Monsanto Take Over the World

https://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/0 ... anto-bain/



Mitt Romney, Monsanto Man

https://www.thenation.com/article/archi ... santo-man/


if you haven't seen this video on our food, you're really missing something.
beware of the evils of Monsanto.
again the power of "secret combinations" (which Romney helps to become more powerful)

The Future of Food (2004)

The interview with Mitt on abortion is very interesting and it shows Mitt's true colors. I am not sure if he is lying when he says some of the brethren are pro-choice. If true, I would like to know which ones.

Anyway, the interviewer quotes the church's official position on abortion. Does anyone know the source of the quote? I know the church has come out with statements in the past, I'm just not sure how recent it was.

What is very interesting and what nobody talks about is how Mitt Romney has personally invested and profited off abortion clinics (disposal of aborted fetuses). Sickening. What we do know about Romney and his baby Bain Capital is morals have nothing to do with it. Doesn't matter if it is morally wrong (MONSANTO, poisoning the world, profits off the loss of life), it only matters if it is legal and profitable. Mitt and Bain Capital have invested in some real evil and shady shiz.

Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses, Government Documents Show
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... cycle-sec/

Earlier this year, Mitt Romney nearly landed in a politically perilous controversy when the Huffington Post reported that in 1999 the GOP presidential candidate had been part of an investment group that invested $75 million in Stericycle, a medical-waste disposal firm that has been attacked by anti-abortion groups for disposing aborted fetuses collected from family planning clinics.

[Lizzy60]

The statement read by the interviewer was from the Handbook.

as one person put it -
quote
"One thing you can say about Trump is he is a man of his word. You cannot say that about Mitt Romney"

Mitt Romney says LDS Leaders are Pro Choice

How Mitt Romney Helped Monsanto Take Over the World

https://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/0 ... anto-bain/



Mitt Romney, Monsanto Man

https://www.thenation.com/article/archi ... santo-man/


if you haven't seen this video on our food, you're really missing something.
beware of the evils of Monsanto.
again the power of "secret combinations" (which Romney helps to become more powerful)

The Future of Food (2004)

The interview with Mitt on abortion is very interesting and it shows Mitt's true colors. I am not sure if he is lying when he says some of the brethren are pro-choice. If true, I would like to know which ones.

Anyway, the interviewer quotes the church's official position on abortion. Does anyone know the source of the quote? I know the church has come out with statements in the past, I'm just not sure how recent it was.

What is very interesting and what nobody talks about is how Mitt Romney has personally invested and profited off abortion clinics (disposal of aborted fetuses). Sickening. What we do know about Romney and his baby Bain Capital is morals have nothing to do with it. Doesn't matter if it is morally wrong (MONSANTO, poisoning the world, profits off the loss of life), it only matters if it is legal and profitable. Mitt and Bain Capital have invested in some real evil and shady shiz.

Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses, Government Documents Show
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... cycle-sec/

Earlier this year, Mitt Romney nearly landed in a politically perilous controversy when the Huffington Post reported that in 1999 the GOP presidential candidate had been part of an investment group that invested $75 million in Stericycle, a medical-waste disposal firm that has been attacked by anti-abortion groups for disposing aborted fetuses collected from family planning clinics.

[simpleton]

This was humourous...

http://video.foxnews.com/v/6130897449001/

[SempiternalHarbinger]

The statement read by the interviewer was from the Handbook.

Thank you Lizzy. I guess that would mean Mitt is the exception? Not only does he support abortion, but he has also donated to planned parenthood, as well as profited immensely off the disposal of aborted fetuses. If the handbook is correct, how has he not been disciplined?

I get it, he was governor of Massachusetts, saved the Olympics, ran for president, a face of my religion, best friends with all the leaders of the lds church, bishop, stake president, beautiful family, etc. I get the love affair with the man. The thing is appearances sure can be deceiving and Mitt is a great example.

"The prince of darkness is a gentleman" - William Shakespeare

[Lizzy60]

This was humourous...

http://video.foxnews.com/v/6130897449001/

I watched this earlier this evening, and was thinking about finding it and posting it here ---- THANKS for doing it for me.

Mittens needs to resign and spend some time with those grandchildren he's so worried might have a poor opinion of him.

[Lizzy60]

The statement read by the interviewer was from the Handbook.

Thank you Lizzy. I guess that would mean Mitt is the exception? Not only does he support abortion, but he has also donated to planned parenthood, as well as profited immensely off the disposal of aborted fetuses. If the handbook is correct, how has he not been disciplined?

As a rule, we don't discipline our public figures / politicians. Think Mike Reid.

Technically, the General Authorities are not supposed to be involved in who is disciplined or not, and that is left up to local leaders, but in practice it seems exceptions are made.

[Sarah]

The statement read by the interviewer was from the Handbook.

Thank you Lizzy. I guess that would mean Mitt is the exception? Not only does he support abortion, but he has also donated to planned parenthood, as well as profited immensely off the disposal of aborted fetuses. If the handbook is correct, how has he not been disciplined?

I get it, he was governor of Massachusetts, saved the Olympics, ran for president, a face of my religion, best friends with all the leaders of the lds church, bishop, stake president, beautiful family, etc. I get the love affair with the man. The thing is appearances sure can be deceiving and Mitt is a great example.

"The prince of darkness is a gentleman" - William Shakespeare

Romney said in the past that he has always been personally pro-life, but back in the day when he ran for governor he looked at that position as a religious belief and didn't feel that he should force that belief on others. This was a common view at that time for members to have (and many still feel this way), that even though one felt something was wrong, it wasn't their place to force that belief on everyone else - kind of like how the libertarians view drug use. And the Church has said that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or life of the mother threatened. So technically, the Church is pro-choice in some circumstances. And I agree. If the agency of the mother has been violated, or her life is threatened, I think that on judgement day, she will not be held accountable for that choice depending on the circumstance.

[simpleton]

The statement read by the interviewer was from the Handbook.

Thank you Lizzy. I guess that would mean Mitt is the exception? Not only does he support abortion, but he has also donated to planned parenthood, as well as profited immensely off the disposal of aborted fetuses. If the handbook is correct, how has he not been disciplined?

I get it, he was governor of Massachusetts, saved the Olympics, ran for president, a face of my religion, best friends with all the leaders of the lds church, bishop, stake president, beautiful family, etc. I get the love affair with the man. The thing is appearances sure can be deceiving and Mitt is a great example.

"The prince of darkness is a gentleman" - William Shakespeare

Romney said in the past that he has always been personally pro-life, but back in the day when he ran for governor he looked at that position as a religious belief and didn't feel that he should force that belief on others. This was a common view at that time for members to have (and many still feel this way), that even though one felt something was wrong, it wasn't their place to force that belief on everyone else - kind of like how the libertarians view drug use. And the Church has said that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or life of the mother threatened. So technically, the Church is pro-choice in some circumstances. And I agree. If the agency of the mother has been violated, or her life is threatened, I think that on judgement day, she will not be held accountable for that choice depending on the circumstance.

This above church stand or stance or "exception" is what is more chilling to me. So if a woman is raped, murder the offspring, if a mothers health/life is declared to be in danger, murder the offspring. What is wrong with dying? What is so wrong with a mother dying for her child? "What greater love".....

It is astounding how the devil gets his licks into church policy and doctrine, and we just swallow it hook line and sinker. Meanwhile the abortion and the IUD and the "Pill" rate among the LDS's steadily climbs, and the family diminishes. It is a sad day in hell. And all for what, to be popular and politically correct with the world, and it is what JS, BY, HCK, JT, WW GQC, and many other early stalwart brethren stood solidly against. I say to hell with that church policy in regards to abortion because that is where it is from, the very depths of hell.
One day we will come face to face at the judgement bar of God Almighty with those of our innocent unborn that we have butchered, and I shudder at the thought of it.

[Mike Griffith]

Romney said in the past that he has always been personally pro-life, but back in the day when he ran for governor he looked at that position as a religious belief and didn't feel that he should force that belief on others.

That is not what he said at the time, not at all. He insisted that he deeply believed in being pro-choice and that his mother convinced him of the correctness of that belief.

This was a common view at that time for members to have (and many still feel this way), that even though one felt something was wrong, it wasn't their place to force that belief on everyone else - kind of like how the libertarians view drug use.

No, it was not the common view among members, and never has been. The vast majority of U.S. members were appalled by Roe v. Wade and believed abortion should remain illegal except for the rare cases of rape and endangerment.

Abortion is the ultimate act of imposing your beliefs on another person--you are imposing on the preborn baby your belief that you have the "right" to kill him or her because they don't fit into your life plans, etc., etc.

And the Church has said that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or life of the mother threatened. So technically, the Church is pro-choice in some circumstances.

Allowing for abortion in cases of endangerment does not in any way constitute being pro-choice, since we're talking about medical necessity to preserve the mother's life. As for the exception of rape, such cases account for only about 2-3% of all abortions, and the Church has made clear that the ideal in such cases is to have the baby and to give him/her up for adoption, and that the decision to abort the baby because of rape should be made only after much prayer and counseling with loved ones and local leaders.

Again, abortions done due to rape account for only 2-3% of abortion cases. The vast majority of abortions are done for the convenience of the mother and/or the father and have nothing to do with any health concerns.

You might want to read some of the more recent statements that General Authorities have made about abortion.

[Sarah]

Romney said in the past that he has always been personally pro-life, but back in the day when he ran for governor he looked at that position as a religious belief and didn't feel that he should force that belief on others.

That is not what he said at the time, not at all. He insisted that he deeply believed in being pro-choice and that his mother convinced him of the correctness of that belief.

This was a common view at that time for members to have (and many still feel this way), that even though one felt something was wrong, it wasn't their place to force that belief on everyone else - kind of like how the libertarians view drug use.

No, it was not the common view among members, and never has been. The vast majority of U.S. members were appalled by Roe v. Wade and believed abortion should remain illegal except for the rare cases of rape and endangerment.

Abortion is the ultimate act of imposing your beliefs on another person--you are imposing on the preborn baby your belief that you have the "right" to kill him or her because they don't fit into your life plans, etc., etc.

And the Church has said that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or life of the mother threatened. So technically, the Church is pro-choice in some circumstances.

Allowing for abortion in cases of endangerment does not in any way constitute being pro-choice, since we're talking about medical necessity to preserve the mother's life. As for the exception of rape, such cases account for only about 2-3% of all abortions, and the Church has made clear that the ideal in such cases is to have the baby and to give him/her up for adoption, and that the decision to abort the baby because of rape should be made only after much prayer and counseling with loved ones and local leaders.

Again, abortions done due to rape account for only 2-3% of abortion cases. The vast majority of abortions are done for the convenience of the mother and/or the father and have nothing to do with any health concerns.

You might want to read some of the more recent statements that General Authorities have made about abortion.

Well, maybe you need to refresh your memory. This is what he said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6bITjlXBHM

It's impossible to know how many members then or now held this libertarian type of view, but I entertained that view as a young adult (but am completely against abortion now), and I knew of many others in the 90's in the church that held this view.

[Sarah]

The statement read by the interviewer was from the Handbook.

Thank you Lizzy. I guess that would mean Mitt is the exception? Not only does he support abortion, but he has also donated to planned parenthood, as well as profited immensely off the disposal of aborted fetuses. If the handbook is correct, how has he not been disciplined?

I get it, he was governor of Massachusetts, saved the Olympics, ran for president, a face of my religion, best friends with all the leaders of the lds church, bishop, stake president, beautiful family, etc. I get the love affair with the man. The thing is appearances sure can be deceiving and Mitt is a great example.

"The prince of darkness is a gentleman" - William Shakespeare

Romney said in the past that he has always been personally pro-life, but back in the day when he ran for governor he looked at that position as a religious belief and didn't feel that he should force that belief on others. This was a common view at that time for members to have (and many still feel this way), that even though one felt something was wrong, it wasn't their place to force that belief on everyone else - kind of like how the libertarians view drug use. And the Church has said that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or life of the mother threatened. So technically, the Church is pro-choice in some circumstances. And I agree. If the agency of the mother has been violated, or her life is threatened, I think that on judgement day, she will not be held accountable for that choice depending on the circumstance.

This above church stand or stance or "exception" is what is more chilling to me. So if a woman is raped, murder the offspring, if a mothers health/life is declared to be in danger, murder the offspring. What is wrong with dying? What is so wrong with a mother dying for her child? "What greater love".....

It is astounding how the devil gets his licks into church policy and doctrine, and we just swallow it hook line and sinker. Meanwhile the abortion and the IUD and the "Pill" rate among the LDS's steadily climbs, and the family diminishes. It is a sad day in hell. And all for what, to be popular and politically correct with the world, and it is what JS, BY, HCK, JT, WW GQC, and many other early stalwart brethren stood solidly against. I say to hell with that church policy in regards to abortion because that is where it is from, the very depths of hell.
One day we will come face to face at the judgement bar of God Almighty with those of our innocent unborn that we have butchered, and I shudder at the thought of it.

I agree that the noble, right thing to do would be for the woman to sacrifice her life and her own wants for the child's, but I don't see why we should protect one life above another according to the law if indeed the life of the mother is in danger. You shouldn't be required by law to lay down your life for another. To me the issue is not so black and white as you view it.

We just had a returned missionary tell us about a woman they met who became pregnant from a rape. In cases like that I see nothing wrong with taking a morning after type of pill. I think I would as long as I knew there was no heartbeat and pain to the child, and that this was not my fault. For rape victims who had their rights taken away, justice means you give them a right to not have the consequences for a choice they didn't make.

Looks like from this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248 about 32,000 cases of pregnancy occur from rape each year in the U.S. The rate is 5% of rape victims become pregnant, and in other countries the rate is much higher. I simply leave God to be the judge and not judge these women who are VICTIMS. I'm supportive of drawing a strict line on abortion but allowing exceptions that the Church supports, because I do believe it is like murder in cases where both were consenting adults.

[Mike Griffith]

Romney said in the past that he has always been personally pro-life, but back in the day when he ran for governor he looked at that position as a religious belief and didn't feel that he should force that belief on others.

That is not what he said at the time, not at all. He insisted that he deeply believed in being pro-choice and that his mother convinced him of the correctness of that belief.

This was a common view at that time for members to have (and many still feel this way), that even though one felt something was wrong, it wasn't their place to force that belief on everyone else - kind of like how the libertarians view drug use.

No, it was not the common view among members, and never has been. The vast majority of U.S. members were appalled by Roe v. Wade and believed abortion should remain illegal except for the rare cases of rape and endangerment.

Abortion is the ultimate act of imposing your beliefs on another person--you are imposing on the preborn baby your belief that you have the "right" to kill him or her because they don't fit into your life plans, etc., etc.

And the Church has said that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or life of the mother threatened. So technically, the Church is pro-choice in some circumstances.

Allowing for abortion in cases of endangerment does not in any way constitute being pro-choice, since we're talking about medical necessity to preserve the mother's life. As for the exception of rape, such cases account for only about 2-3% of all abortions, and the Church has made clear that the ideal in such cases is to have the baby and to give him/her up for adoption, and that the decision to abort the baby because of rape should be made only after much prayer and counseling with loved ones and local leaders.

Again, abortions done due to rape account for only 2-3% of abortion cases. The vast majority of abortions are done for the convenience of the mother and/or the father and have nothing to do with any health concerns.

You might want to read some of the more recent statements that General Authorities have made about abortion.

Well, maybe you need to refresh your memory. This is what he said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6bITjlXBHM

Yes, I've seen that video, and many others. You can find several different statements by him where he tried to weasel-word his way through the issue. When he ran for governor in MA in 2002, he even denied that he had accepted the endorsement of a pro-life group and called his mother's pro-choice stand in a conservative state an act of courage. When he ran for the Senate in 1994, he recounted a story about having a friend who died from an illegal abortion and that ever since then. long before he ran for office, he adamantly supported keeping abortion legal. Yet, the Church clearly and unequivocally condemned the Roe v. Wade decision, but he didn't seem to care.

It's impossible to know how many members then or now held this libertarian type of view, but I entertained that view as a young adult (but am completely against abortion now), and I knew of many others in the 90's in the church that held this view.

I've been active in LDS political circles for some 30 years, and I would say that 98% of the members with whom I've discussed the issue have not expressed the libertarian view you describe. Again, the Church roundly condemned the Roe v. Wade decision when it occurred. Here is a compilation of General Authority and Church statements on abortion that I updated a few years ago:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/ldslead ... ortion.htm

[Sarah]

Romney said in the past that he has always been personally pro-life, but back in the day when he ran for governor he looked at that position as a religious belief and didn't feel that he should force that belief on others.

That is not what he said at the time, not at all. He insisted that he deeply believed in being pro-choice and that his mother convinced him of the correctness of that belief.

This was a common view at that time for members to have (and many still feel this way), that even though one felt something was wrong, it wasn't their place to force that belief on everyone else - kind of like how the libertarians view drug use.

No, it was not the common view among members, and never has been. The vast majority of U.S. members were appalled by Roe v. Wade and believed abortion should remain illegal except for the rare cases of rape and endangerment.

Abortion is the ultimate act of imposing your beliefs on another person--you are imposing on the preborn baby your belief that you have the "right" to kill him or her because they don't fit into your life plans, etc., etc.

And the Church has said that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or life of the mother threatened. So technically, the Church is pro-choice in some circumstances.

Allowing for abortion in cases of endangerment does not in any way constitute being pro-choice, since we're talking about medical necessity to preserve the mother's life. As for the exception of rape, such cases account for only about 2-3% of all abortions, and the Church has made clear that the ideal in such cases is to have the baby and to give him/her up for adoption, and that the decision to abort the baby because of rape should be made only after much prayer and counseling with loved ones and local leaders.

Again, abortions done due to rape account for only 2-3% of abortion cases. The vast majority of abortions are done for the convenience of the mother and/or the father and have nothing to do with any health concerns.

You might want to read some of the more recent statements that General Authorities have made about abortion.

Well, maybe you need to refresh your memory. This is what he said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6bITjlXBHM

Yes, I've seen that video, and many others. You can find several different statements by him where he tried to weasel-word his way through the issue. When he ran for governor in MA in 2002, he even denied that he had accepted the endorsement of a pro-life group and called his mother's pro-choice stand in a conservative state an act of courage. When he ran for the Senate in 1994, he recounted a story about having a friend who died from an illegal abortion and that ever since then. long before he ran for office, he adamantly supported keeping abortion legal. Yet, the Church clearly and unequivocally condemned the Roe v. Wade decision, but he didn't seem to care.

It's impossible to know how many members then or now held this libertarian type of view, but I entertained that view as a young adult (but am completely against abortion now), and I knew of many others in the 90's in the church that held this view.

I've been active in LDS political circles for some 30 years, and I would say that 98% of the members with whom I've discussed the issue have not expressed the libertarian view you describe. Again, the Church roundly condemned the Roe v. Wade decision when it occurred. Here is a compilation of General Authority and Church statements on abortion that I updated a few years ago:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/ldslead ... ortion.htm

So what you're basically saying is that you don't believe him when he tried to describe his thoughts on how he arrived at his decision - that he's lying. That's fine I guess. But you can't prove that he's lying about how he was really thinking about the issue. The important thing is that he also has described how he had a change of heart while serving as Governor, and was faced with the decision to fund research on embryos. He said that was a turning point in helping him realize he needed to be firmly pro-life, which he still is today. You know that Trump went through a similar flip-flop right? And you believe Trump is sincere but not Romney.

[SempiternalHarbinger]

So what you're basically saying is that you don't believe him when he tried to describe his thoughts on how he arrived at his decision - that he's lying. That's fine I guess. But you can't prove that he's lying about how he was really thinking about the issue. The important thing is that he also has described how he had a change of heart while serving as Governor, and was faced with the decision to fund research on embryos. He said that was a turning point in helping him realize he needed to be firmly pro-life, which he still is today. You know that Trump went through a similar flip-flop right? And you believe Trump is sincere but not Romney.

The problem is he has flipped flopped so many times on the issue (really every issue) that it is really hard to believe a word he says. In 1994 he says he supported Rowe vs Wade, in 2007 Romney flat out said that he has never been pro-choice (video below), and today he says he has always been pro-choice. It can be confusing with Mitt. Just pick a year and interview and his beliefs will be different every time. Zero consistency. It's like he wakes up in the morning and flips a coin to decide what his beliefs will be that day depending on the audience. Change of heart has nothing to do with it. He is a typical lying politician. I don't trust the man nor do I believe he is a moral or honest man. He is a slithering snake in the grass and it would be nice if the people of Utah bought some new blades for the lawnmowers. He has proven he doesn't give 2 cents for the constitution. I don't buy his tears or academy award performance on Trump's impeachment. It's all an act. I am just curious about what the purpose was. I'm sure we will find out soon enough.

Regardless of his flip-flopping on the topic, the bigger issue is he profits off abortions just like those doing the abortions. The more abortions, the more blood money Romney would bring in. This is in 1999 mind you, in 2007 he made it clear he was pro-life. lol And do you know how Romney's company disposed of the aborted fetuses? Morally unacceptable and evil at it's finest. Not sure how Mitt even sleeps at night because you couldn't pay me all the money in the world to partake and be involved with the likes of Stericycle and Monsanto. I cannot be bought with money. The word of wisdom warns us of the Romney types. And considering the church's stance, I have no idea how it is tolerable. But Money, name, power, recognition pays well in the church. Clearly.

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

In today’s society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord’s declaration, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng

I see right through Romney's deceptive arguments and practices. His skin is thin. I see no difference in one performing abortions and one disposing of aborted fetuses. They fall under the same evil roof.

[Sarah]

So what you're basically saying is that you don't believe him when he tried to describe his thoughts on how he arrived at his decision - that he's lying. That's fine I guess. But you can't prove that he's lying about how he was really thinking about the issue. The important thing is that he also has described how he had a change of heart while serving as Governor, and was faced with the decision to fund research on embryos. He said that was a turning point in helping him realize he needed to be firmly pro-life, which he still is today. You know that Trump went through a similar flip-flop right? And you believe Trump is sincere but not Romney.

The problem is he has flipped flopped so many times on the issue (really every issue) that it is really hard to believe a word he says. In 1994 he says he supported Rowe vs Wade, in 2007 Romney flat out said that he has never been pro-choice (video below), and today he says he has always been pro-choice. It can be confusing with Mitt. Just pick a year and interview and his beliefs will be different every time. Zero consistency. It's like he wakes up in the morning and flips a coin to decide what his beliefs will be that day depending on the audience. Change of heart has nothing to do with it. He is a typical lying politician. I don't trust the man nor do I believe he is a moral or honest man. He is a slithering snake in the grass and it would be nice if the people of Utah bought some new blades for the lawnmowers. He has proven he doesn't give 2 cents for the constitution. I don't buy his tears or academy award performance on Trump's impeachment. It's all an act. I am just curious about what the purpose was. I'm sure we will find out soon enough.

Regardless of his flip-flopping on the topic, the bigger issue is he profits off abortions just like those doing the abortions. The more abortions, the more blood money Romney would bring in. This is in 1999 mind you, in 2007 he made it clear he was pro-life. lol And do you know how Romney's company disposed of the aborted fetuses? Morally unacceptable and evil at it's finest. Not sure how Mitt even sleeps at night because you couldn't pay me all the money in the world to partake and be involved with the likes of Stericycle and Monsanto. I cannot be bought with money. The word of wisdom warns us of the Romney types. And considering the church's stance, I have no idea how it is tolerable. But Money, name, power, recognition pays well in the church. Clearly.

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

In today’s society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord’s declaration, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng

I see right through Romney's deceptive arguments and practices. His skin is thin. I see no difference in one performing abortions and one disposing of aborted fetuses. They fall under the same evil roof.

Believe what you want, but in my experience in looking up the details about all these so-called flip flops or other accusations about profiting off of abortions etc, the facts don't warrant the condemnation in my opinion. The accusations are blown way out of proportion, and assumptions are made as well. I'm happy to look at the evidence you'd like me to look at, but every politician changes his or her mind over the course of their lifetime about some things - and I do too. Trump's flip-flops and connections with evil people and evil business is much worse than Romney's record.

I believe Romney when he says that he has always felt that abortion was wrong. He even counseled a woman not to get an abortion. But his question was whether or not we should make it illegal. I'm sure you think adultery is wrong, but should I harp on you for not lobbying for a law against it? I know it seems so clear cut to you and others that abortion in all it's forms is murder, but that is not how many look at it, and you simply need to make your case to open minded people like Romney who decided that indeed we should make it illegal.

[Mike Griffith]

It is perhaps worth noting that Romney's father, George Romney, joined with liberal Republicans at the GOP convention to try to sabotage Barry Goldwater's nomination and candidacy, and Matt was with him at the time. Romney Sr. even gave a speech in which he compared Goldwater to the 19-century Know Nothings. Romney Sr. also very publicly said he would not vote for Goldwater. In the 1990s, Romney gave a speech in which he pointedly said that he was not a "Reagan Republican."

Speaking of Mitt Romney and abortion, the most revealing video on the subject is his 2007 interview with conservative radio host Jan Mickelson. When Mickelson pressed Romney about his previous adamant support of Roe v. Wade and how this conflicted with the Church's official statements on abortion, Romney lost his cool, so much so that he had to get up and walk around. He came close to walking out of the interview, even though Mickelson was not being the least bit rude but was simply trying to get him to explain how someone could be a devout Mormon and still actively work to keep abortion legal ala Roe v. Wade. Remember that when he ran for governor in MA, Romney said he would not even support a 24-hour waiting period for an abortion. Mickelson read to Romney a segment out of the General Handbook of Instructions that stated that members "must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion" and that members who did so could lose their membership (by the way, this is still the Church's position: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/top ... n?lang=eng). Here's the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFkaCji-UDA

Romney fell back on the old liberal LDS argument that he wouldn't try to "impose" prohibition even though the Church teaches that members should avoid alcohol. Of course, this is a specious analogy. Drinking alcohol is a decision that only directly affects the drinker's physical health; it does not involve killing another person or telling one person that they can kill a preborn baby if they so "choose."

When Mickelson brought Romney back to the moral inconsistency in his position, Romney lost his cool. Romney even made the incredible claim that the Church does *not* teach that members should be pro-life! Amazed, Mickelson referred again to the statement from the handbook, and Romney became more agitated. Romney then shifted ground and said that the Church does not require or force members to be pro-life---true, the Church does not force or require this, but, well, how can you claim to believe that the Church and its leaders are inspired and then turn around and reject what the Church says about legalized abortion? If the Church says abortion should not be legal except in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment, how can you claim to be a true follower and reject that position?

If you watch all of the available videos of Romney talking about abortion before his alleged change of heart on the issue, you'll notice that he never, ever, ever said that abortion was wrong. On a few occasions, he obliquely indicated that his public position was not the same as his private position, but in each case he did so briefly, blandly, and almost in passing.

Look, I voted for, worked for, and donated to Mitt Romney in 2012. I still think he would have been a better president than Obama, but I see now that Romney is not the principled, honest person that I thought he was.

[Sarah]

It is perhaps worth noting that Romney's father, George Romney, joined with liberal Republicans at the GOP convention to try to sabotage Barry Goldwater's nomination and candidacy, and Matt was with him at the time. Romney Sr. even gave a speech in which he compared Goldwater to the 19-century Know Nothings. Romney Sr. also very publicly said he would not vote for Goldwater. In the 1990s, Romney gave a speech in which he pointedly said that he was not a "Reagan Republican."

Speaking of Mitt Romney and abortion, the most revealing video on the subject is his 2007 interview with conservative radio host Jan Mickelson. When Mickelson pressed Romney about his previous adamant support of Roe v. Wade and how this conflicted with the Church's official statements on abortion, Romney lost his cool, so much so that he had to get up and walk around. He came close to walking out of the interview, even though Mickelson was not being the least bit rude but was simply trying to get to explain how someone could be a devout Mormon and still actively work to keep abortion legal ala Roe v. Wade. Remember that when he ran for governor in MA, Romney said he would not even support a 24-hour waiting period for an abortion. Mickelson read to Romney a segment out of the General Handbook of Instructions that stated that members "must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion" and that members who did so could lose their membership (by the way, this is still the Church's position: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/top ... n?lang=eng). Here's the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFkaCji-UDA

Romney fell back on the old liberal LDS argument that he wouldn't try to "impose" prohibition even though the Church teaches that members should avoid alcohol. Of course, this is a specious analogy. Drinking alcohol is a decision that only directly affects the drinker's physical health; it does not involve killing another person or telling one person that they can kill a preborn baby if they so "choose." When Mickelson brought Romney back to the moral inconsistency in his position, Romney lost his cool. Romney even made the incredible claim that the Church does *not* teach that members should be pro-life! Amazed, Mickelson referred again to the statement from the handbook, and Romney became more agitated.

If you watch all of the available videos of Romney talking about abortion before his alleged change of heart on the issue, you'll notice that he never, ever, ever said that abortion was wrong. On a few occasions, he obliquely indicated that his public position was not the same as his private position, but in each case he did so briefly, blandly, and almost in passing.

This is part of the problem - people like you who think that drinking and drug use and adultery and fornication only affect the individual. It's a double standard. All that behavior certainly does affect other people besides the person engaged in the behavior. It contributes and leads to crime and the violation of the rights of individuals. We should make it all illegal if we are going by what the Church says is wrong. The Church is against all these things, but you only want to make abortion illegal. You say that the other things don't affect the life, only abortion does, but I could argue that just as many deaths result from the use of alcohol, drugs, and immoral behavior than as the result of abortion.

[Mike Griffith]

This is part of the problem - people like you who think that drinking and drug use and adultery and fornication only affect the individual.

That is NOT what I said. I didn't even mention adultery, drug use, and fornication. I said that alcohol use only directly affects the physical condition of the person who consumes it. I then pointed out that abortion directly affects another person by killing that person, and that allowing a mother who wants to abort her baby results in the death of the baby. It's like saying, "I'm against murder, but I think each person should get to choose, without penalty, whether or not they murder someone. I would never murder someone, but I won't try to impose my values on others."

The Church is against all these things, but you only want to make abortion illegal. You say that the other things don't affect the life, only abortion does, but I could argue that just as many deaths result from the use of alcohol, drugs, and immoral behavior than as the result of abortion.

Abortion's entire purpose is to kill babies, so, yes, I want to make it illegal. That is a very different issue than the indirect effects of booze, drugs, and immorality. A person does not drink or use drugs to hurt other people. As for fornication and adultery, in the vast majority of cases, a person does not commit fornication or adultery in order to physically harm another person. But the whole point of abortion is to kill a baby.

[Sarah]

It is perhaps worth noting that Romney's father, George Romney, joined with liberal Republicans at the GOP convention to try to sabotage Barry Goldwater's nomination and candidacy, and Matt was with him at the time. Romney Sr. even gave a speech in which he compared Goldwater to the 19-century Know Nothings. Romney Sr. also very publicly said he would not vote for Goldwater. In the 1990s, Romney gave a speech in which he pointedly said that he was not a "Reagan Republican."

Speaking of Mitt Romney and abortion, the most revealing video on the subject is his 2007 interview with conservative radio host Jan Mickelson. When Mickelson pressed Romney about his previous adamant support of Roe v. Wade and how this conflicted with the Church's official statements on abortion, Romney lost his cool, so much so that he had to get up and walk around. He came close to walking out of the interview, even though Mickelson was not being the least bit rude but was simply trying to get him to explain how someone could be a devout Mormon and still actively work to keep abortion legal ala Roe v. Wade. Remember that when he ran for governor in MA, Romney said he would not even support a 24-hour waiting period for an abortion. Mickelson read to Romney a segment out of the General Handbook of Instructions that stated that members "must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion" and that members who did so could lose their membership (by the way, this is still the Church's position: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/top ... n?lang=eng). Here's the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFkaCji-UDA

Romney fell back on the old liberal LDS argument that he wouldn't try to "impose" prohibition even though the Church teaches that members should avoid alcohol. Of course, this is a specious analogy. Drinking alcohol is a decision that only directly affects the drinker's physical health; it does not involve killing another person or telling one person that they can kill a preborn baby if they so "choose."

When Mickelson brought Romney back to the moral inconsistency in his position, Romney lost his cool. Romney even made the incredible claim that the Church does *not* teach that members should be pro-life! Amazed, Mickelson referred again to the statement from the handbook, and Romney became more agitated. Romney then shifted ground and said that the Church does not require or force members to be pro-life---true, the Church does not force or require this, but, well, how can you claim to believe that the Church and its leaders are inspired and then turn around and reject what the Church says about legalized abortion? If the Church says abortion should not be legal except in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment, how can you claim to be a true follower and reject that position?

If you watch all of the available videos of Romney talking about abortion before his alleged change of heart on the issue, you'll notice that he never, ever, ever said that abortion was wrong. On a few occasions, he obliquely indicated that his public position was not the same as his private position, but in each case he did so briefly, blandly, and almost in passing.

Look, I voted for, worked for, and donated to Mitt Romney in 2012. I still think he would have been a better president than Obama, but I see now that Romney is not the principled, honest person that I thought he was.

Romney makes complete sense in this interview. The interviewer kept interrupting him and clearly was not smart enough to separate the idea of separating personal or church beliefs from what civil law should be.

[Sarah]

This is part of the problem - people like you who think that drinking and drug use and adultery and fornication only affect the individual.

That is NOT what I said. I didn't even mention adultery, drug use, and fornication. I said that alcohol use only directly affects the physical condition of the person who consumes it. I then pointed out that abortion directly affects another person by killing that person, and that allowing a mother who wants to abort her baby results in the death of the baby. It's like saying, "I'm against murder, but I think each person should get to choose, without penalty, whether or not they murder someone. I would never murder someone, but I won't try to impose my values on others."

The Church is against all these things, but you only want to make abortion illegal. You say that the other things don't affect the life, only abortion does, but I could argue that just as many deaths result from the use of alcohol, drugs, and immoral behavior than as the result of abortion.

Abortion's entire purpose is to kill babies, so, yes, I want to make it illegal. That is a very different issue than the indirect effects of booze, drugs, and immorality. A person does not drink or use drugs to hurt other people. As for fornication and adultery, in the vast majority of cases, a person does not commit fornication or adultery in order to physically harm another person. But the whole point of abortion is to kill a baby.

But you fail to see that in many peoples' minds, even church members, especially when this debate was new, didn't view it as killing babies in all cases. After conception, should we legally grant that growing baby rights trumping the mother's after 1 week, 2, 3, 4 etc.? That is where the dilemma comes into play, even today, of how we place the rights of the unborn above that of the mother. Should we grant all legal rights to the unborn the same as the born? That is the hard question in some people's minds, so I think you need to realize that many people in and out of the church have a hard time drawing that line when it comes to making law. It's definitely not something to harp on Romney about when he had a very pro-life record while he was Governor, and it is very clear that he has always personally been pro-life and hoped that Roe vs. Wade could be overturned.

[Sarah]

This is part of the problem - people like you who think that drinking and drug use and adultery and fornication only affect the individual.

That is NOT what I said. I didn't even mention adultery, drug use, and fornication. I said that alcohol use only directly affects the physical condition of the person who consumes it. I then pointed out that abortion directly affects another person by killing that person, and that allowing a mother who wants to abort her baby results in the death of the baby. It's like saying, "I'm against murder, but I think each person should get to choose, without penalty, whether or not they murder someone. I would never murder someone, but I won't try to impose my values on others."

The Church is against all these things, but you only want to make abortion illegal. You say that the other things don't affect the life, only abortion does, but I could argue that just as many deaths result from the use of alcohol, drugs, and immoral behavior than as the result of abortion.

Abortion's entire purpose is to kill babies, so, yes, I want to make it illegal. That is a very different issue than the indirect effects of booze, drugs, and immorality. A person does not drink or use drugs to hurt other people. As for fornication and adultery, in the vast majority of cases, a person does not commit fornication or adultery in order to physically harm another person. But the whole point of abortion is to kill a baby.

I'm all for abortion being illegal too, but I would also love to see adultery, fornication, and drug and alcohol use banned as well, because of the effects it has on society. It leads to death, violence, killing, stealing, addiction, irresponsibility, and breaks up families, denies children of responsible caring parents, and so forth. When it comes to law, we have to balance the rights of the individual with the rights of others and consider how each person's behavior affects others.

[mudflap]

Late to the party, I see...

Ok, 2 things:

1. if Mitt is going to hide behind his "oath to God" or whatever his schtick is today, does it not also apply to "being honest with your fellow man" - as in, maybe not lie about your identity and make up a fictitious supporter named Pierre Delecto? how do you square your oath to God while simultaneously tricking folks with a fake supporter?

2. You Utah folks got some splaining to do: https://www.ksl.com/article/46716462/ne ... mneys-vote

I know KSL is a die-hard Romney supporter, so this poll result is right in line with their politics- as in, of course they want to publish it. My question is- they don't divulge the data for the poll- only one number - "500 people". What is the breakdown of those folks? how many: democrats? republicans? mormons? non-mormons? what location - SLC proper, or ? Just doesn't quite pass the sniff test if you don't release the data behind your results, IMO.


Mitt is a Craven politician. change my mind.

[ori]

The statement read by the interviewer was from the Handbook.

The way that the interviewer reads it off, without context, it sounds like the church is saying that abortion is ALWAYS wrong.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/top ... n?lang=eng

This says something similar to what the interviewer read, but it is in the context of "Elective abortion for personal or social convenience". The quote from the above link is as follows:

"Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church."

It then goes on to qualify,

"Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion."

I think Mitt would have best been served by sticking with the official position of the church, as I have quoted above. (I'm sure he knows it).

Watching the interview just makes me think even less of Mitt. (Didn't know that was possible!)