Would the Republicans ever put a presidential candidate in the race if he/she was Pro-Choice?

It seems as though Mitt Romney was Pro-Choice in Massachusetts but now flipped to Anit-Abortion mode. His "strong conservative" traits seem to be up for grabs depending on the mood of the crowd.

Also, on the same issue of Pro-Choice, how can any right thinking woman believe it is best for a group of mainly white old men in Washington legislate what is her control over her own body? That kind of thinking belongs in a country such as Iran or Pakistan where the Taliban has ruling over women's rights.

Don't get nervous, Mitt is and will revert back to pro-choice after he is elected. I am all for him doing whatever it takes to get the votes. He is the man for the job and he is man enough to stay out of womens rights. I doubt if too many Republicans will vote for Obama just because Mitt is Pro-Choice.

Also believe that Mitt Romney will probably flip-flop on the abortion matter. He does what it takes to get elected IMHO then weighs his options after that based upon political realities.

If I thought he was Pro-Life, it would make it harder for me to vote for him, but I have faith he will to right by women and on issues of health care also.

I wasn't sure so I googled Past Pro-choice Presidents. Didn't find any. Doubt Mitt would be the first one.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Also believe that Mitt Romney will probably flip-flop on the abortion matter. He does what it takes to get elected IMHO then weighs his options after that based upon political realities.

This is absurd !!!! Or is there another word to use instead, as Obama uses the word "evolve" on all of his policy fli...opps...."evolvments"

He was against super pacs, now for them
He was opposed to FISA and now is for it
He was against military tribunals and now he is for them
He was opposed to gay marriages and now he is for it
He said he would take public financing and then when he found out the due to the amount had gathered he would actually lose money so he was then against it
He said that Bush violated the constitution on a entire range of Patriot age issues and then embraced it.
He was against lobbyists working in the WH and then he was ok with it.


These are just off the top of my head...but again, Romney flip flops...Obama "evolves"

You simply post the tripe you are fed OR you just do not pay attention.

This post is simply made because of the absurd charges you level. ALL politicians change positions...ALL of them but you are repeating just what the party tells you to do.

Someday you folks tell me when to use FLIP FLOP and when to use EVOLVE !!

Absolutely correct and that is why I am confident Romney will do the right thing for women when he is elected. If all the republicans thought he was 100% pro-life he would not have a chance of being elected. We know it, we get it and I say lets move on.

Romney in 2012.

At this point in this election the abortion issue is actually a non-issue. Obama is pro-choice; so it's still a no brainer to vote for Romney in any case, if you're even thinking about this, as our country and our individual freedoms come crashing down around our ears.

Nice try in trying to rile your opponents, but a major fail, in my eyes.

The diversion technique does not work. The topic was on Romney being either Pro-Choice or Anti-Abortion depending on the crowd he is wooing on any particular day.

The topic was also asking how any free thinking woman could allow a congress of basically old white men in Washington dictate how she could use her own body. That basically is the technique of the Taliban in Iraq and Pakistan and is not needed in the USA.

The individual right of a woman's free choice is one RichieLion talks of that comes crashing down just like in Iraq or Pakistan.

I certainly would not want to diminsh the importance of pro-life/choice issue in peoples lives but honestly the deciding factor for a person's choice for president is going to hang on that one issue. Really! I guess it explains why Obama and Romney are spending so muich time on the campaign trail talking about it.

Originally Posted by buggyone

The diversion technique does not work. The topic was on Romney being either Pro-Choice or Anti-Abortion depending on the crowd he is wooing on any particular day.

The topic was also asking how any free thinking woman could allow a congress of basically old white men in Washington dictate how she could use her own body. That basically is the technique of the Taliban in Iraq and Pakistan and is not needed in the USA.

The individual right of a woman's free choice is one RichieLion talks of that comes crashing down just like in Iraq or Pakistan.

No diversion here. You mentioned an issue and I'm speaking to the issue. I believe "the issue" is a non-issue.

Next question?

Originally Posted by rubicon

I certainly would not want to diminsh the importance of pro-life/choice issue in peoples lives but honestly the deciding factor for a person's choice for president is going to hang on that one issue. Really! I guess it explains why Obama and Romney are spending so muich time on the campaign trail talking about it.

Buggy's just trying to prop up the failed Democrat campaign of a "Republican's war on women".

I hear that the famous 39 pound cat that was in the news has recently died. This proving for one and all the "Republican war on cats".

Originally Posted by rubicon

I certainly would not want to diminsh the importance of pro-life/choice issue in peoples lives but honestly the deciding factor for a person's choice for president is going to hang on that one issue. Really! I guess it explains why Obama and Romney are spending so muich time on the campaign trail talking about it.

Put yourself in your daughter's or grand-daughter's shoes and you may think that pro-choice is one of the very big issues in this campaign. Why should a group of old white men in Washington determine how your daughter or grand daughter should use their own bodies? Read the book called, "Our Bodies, Our Selves".

Originally Posted by buggyone

Put yourself in your daughter's or grand-daughter's shoes and you may think that pro-choice is one of the very big issues in this campaign. Why should a group of old white men in Washington determine how they should use their own bodies? Read the book called, "Our Bodies, Our Selves".

Just seems to me that Mitt Romney is preaching to his congregation to get elected President. He needs the pro-life block to get elected; so, he will probably change his position once in office.

This does not seem to be an important issue to him given how many times he has changed his position on abortion. Mitt Romney on Abortion Political positions of Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rick Santorum would have stuck to his guns on abortion-- against it as far as I can tell-- but do not see Mitt Romney staying on one side or another. Rick Santorum on the Issues

Originally Posted by buggyone

The diversion technique does not work. The topic was on Romney being either Pro-Choice or Anti-Abortion depending on the crowd he is wooing on any particular day.

The topic was also asking how any free thinking woman could allow a congress of basically old white men in Washington dictate how she could use her own body. That basically is the technique of the Taliban in Iraq and Pakistan and is not needed in the USA.

The individual right of a woman's free choice is one RichieLion talks of that comes crashing down just like in Iraq or Pakistan.

Which way do the old women in Congress lean on the issue?