Skip to main content

If Romney is for Abortion on Demand, Why Vote for Him?

If Romney is for Abortion on Demand, Why Vote for Him?

I said I will not vote for Mitt. But, Obama is so in your face about making the USA an abortion/anti-family state that I’m having second thoughts.

Is it better to have the enemy in front of you?

Will Romney's create a liberal paradigm shift in the Republican Party not just for homosexual “special rights”, but also for abortion on demand that will never be reversed in that Party.

Lesfemmes wrote:

Did you hear what [Romney] said? Abortion for rape and incest and "health and life of the mother." That is Roe v. Wade and it equals abortion on demand. In Doe v. Bolton, the companion decision, the court defined the woman's "health" to include physical health, mental health, the woman's family situation, and her age. To sum up, it was abortion in the first three months for no reason; abortion in the last six for any reason. Unborn babies are just so much trash to both presidential candidates.

Romney is one of the men C.S. Lewis described as "without chests."

He has no heart and he appears to use his intellect to reason out whatever position is necessary to get elected. (Obama too, of course.) I'm guessing Romney embraces this position to make himself more palatable to the "women's vote." But to pro-life women, his position is repulsive and repugnant. To watch a grown man smile as he supports the murder of little babies is to see a bully at work.


I’m back to leaning against voting for Mr. Abortion on Demand Romney.


PS Pat Buchanan is wrong in saying: "If Romney wins, the Supreme Court will likely leave the issue of same-sex marriage to be decided by the people and their elected representatives."

As Peter LaBarbera shows below "Though Romney pretends he opposed homosexual “marriage,” he did the opposite...Since the notorious Goodridge court opinion discovering a constitutional right to “gay marriage,” Romney has methodically lied about the judges’ legal authority and his own legal duty to enforce the Constitution."

If Mitt wins and does what he has always done and not what he says on pro-life/family issues which he appears never to do (see below), what happens if he is president?

The war for a pro-life Supreme Court is over(period). The war for a pro-life/family Republican is most likely over.

If Obama wins, in four years Obama will be as unpopular Bush was, will have a real chance to vote in a real pro-life/family president?

Mitt Romney's Liberal Paradigm Shift: a Republican FOR Homosexual 'Special Rights'

MEDIA ADVISORY, Feb. 4 /Christian Newswire/ -- Peter LaBarbera, founder of Republicans For Family Values, today criticized GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney for his "novel pro- homosexual positioning in the GOP." On Dec. 16, Romney (the alleged "conservative" in the race) told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "it makes sense at the state level" to enact pro-homosexual "sexual orientation" laws. (Last week, CNN's Roland Martin reported that Romney told him that he opposes "gay marriage," but supports "gay rights.")

LaBarbera issued the following statement:

Mitt Romney just doesn't get it on the homosexual agenda, and if he doesn't get at after serving as governor of liberal Massachusetts -- where "gay marriage," homosexual adoption and pro- homosexuality indoctrination in schools ALL were advanced by the sort of pro-gay "sexual orientation" laws he's now espousing -- then he's not going to get it at the federal level.

Romney is already using his bully pulpit as a candidate to affirm "gay rights"-- even AFTER he's earned the backing of pro-family leaders who seemingly would have much to teach him about the danger and misuse of pro-homosexual laws. (Note that Romney uses gay-affirming "discrimination" rhetoric even with regard to the Boy Scouts' ban on homosexuals.)

I don't know any serious pro-lifers who are pro- homosexuality. We all have compassion for homosexual strugglers, but we draw the line at laws that would distort "civil rights" to include sinful and changeable homosexual behavior -- because these laws will be used to compel individuals, business and even ministries to violate their beliefs and support homosexual relationships (see the Weekly Standard article, "Banned in Boston," about Boston Catholic Charities electing to close down its historic adoption agency rather than place kids in homosexual households).

Romney is trying to shift the GOP's pro-family paradigm on homosexuality, and it's an unwise shift -- much like retreating from a principled position on pro- life (e.g., "I'm pro-choice but not pro-partial-birth abortion"). Due to Romney's potential for being the "Nixon-goes-to-China" president who advances pro-homosexuality agendas in the GOP -- I cannot support him.

Why do the same conservative pundits who have assailed Mick Huckabee and John McCain as too liberal, promote the fiction that Mitt Romney - who strongly defended abortion-on-demand and who remains in favor of anti-Christian homosexual special rights laws as a Mormon -- is a "conservative"?

Christian Newswire

No vote for Romney? Well ...

In the most recent Gilbert Magazine, Dale Ahlquist, he of seemingly infinite Chestertonian knowledge, wrote an editorial entitled, "Why I won't vote for Mitt Romney."

I was intrigued.

I can think of many reasons not to vote for Romney, and I was curious to see if his reasons jibed with ones that had occurred to me.

He threw a curve ball - sort of.

Ahlquist talked about his experience as a lobbyist in 1996 and witnessing the Republican machine in operation determining the 2000 nominee. He saw the same process in operation this time around.

So he views Romney as a product of the party machine, and not the real choice of the voters.

Okay, I can see that.

He also alluded to some of the reasons why I will not vote for Romney. The Republican Party tends to pay lip service to social values such as the pro-life position on abortion, but once it suckers in the social conservatives it fails to deliver. Even worse for folks in my neck of the woods (New York) many of our local Republican Party elected officials and candidates would be Democrats in most other states. Heck, I'm currently represented by a Catholic Republican Congressman who supports abortion!

The Republican Party is really about money, he contends, and I agree. Big Business, as he puts it. Of course, the alternative is Big Government (that other major party).

And, to be honest, given Romney's track record, I still don't know how sincere he is on the issues that are important to me - like the Right to Life.

Where I might stray from Ahlquist's position is that Romney is still slightly better that Obama on some significant issues, and if I had to chose, and if I lived in a state where my vote might actually count, I would reluctantly vote for him. Romney is more likely to change some policies, and to chose judges who might be more reasonable. I think. I hope.

Of course, because of the Electoral College, my vote in New York doesn't matter. This state will give its Electoral votes to Obama no matter what happens in the next few months - unless they indict him, and even then he still might carry the state.

So I don't have to vote for either of the machine-chosen major party candidates. I hear Santa Claus is running. Hmm.....

But if I lived in a state like Ohio, I'd consider voting for Romney - sorry Dale. I don't want to see four more years of anti-life, anti-faith policies.

Ahlquist says he will vote for neither Obama nor Romney, concluding: "I will not play this game anymore."

I understand where he's coming from.

I'm just not there yet.

Posted by A Secular Franciscan at 3:29 PM


TS said...

Interesting post! I live in Ohio and will be voting for Romney, but what interests me is how Alquist seems to place the blame on the wrong place. Last time I checked, real, live Republican voters voted Romney as the nominee. So the fault lies there. If many are seduced by the media or money or - God help us - campaign ads, then well we deserve what we get. Anybody who votes based on a campaign ad ought get their right taken away, ha. So UNLESS the Republican party altered the votes cast in the primaries, then I'm okay with whatever. It's a democracy and it's certainly more democratic than in the '50s when candidates were nominatged in smoke-filled rooms.

It seems part of the ethos of many is a) to blame-shift and see everything in conspiratorial terms and b) to not recognize real advances when they come, as has happened in civil rights and the more open nomination process for the Republican party, to name two.

7:32 PM

Trubador said...

I am in the same predicament as Dale and ASF. I'm in California, so I may be in the same situation as ASF is in NY come November - so I could then afford to vote a 3rd way. But if CA comes into play, then I'm in a quandary. Do I tow the line YET AGAIN, or tack a different course?

Perry was my initial candidate of choice (from a weak list of candidates). Santorum became my de facto second choice. Twice on my blog (on Nov 3 of last year, and on Feb 1 of this year) I exclaimed quite forcefully my unwillingness to vote for Romney.

Given where things are at right now, and after the horrific ObamaCare decision by the SCOTUS, and what would be a disaster if "The One" got another four years... I'm at the proverbial crossroads/horns of a dilemma.

Re: Dale's take on the (R) party machine, he's right. Quoting from one of my posts:

"I have towed the line patiently and diligently for a looooong time. I voted for Bush Sr. in ’92 even though he went back on his word re: taxes. I swallowed Dole in ’96 when he placated the conservatives by picking Kemp as his running mate. I voted for Bush W. when he placated conservatives by picking Cheney as HIS running mate in 2000. And I held the line and re-elected Bush W. in ’04 even though he and the Republican congress started going off the reservation. I held my nose and voted for McCain when HE placated conservatives by picking Palin."

And here we are YET AGAIN with Romney and whomever his running mate will be (Jindal?...Rubio?... fiscal/social conservative Catholics to dangle in front of our noses like a carrot to a shackled beast of burden?).

And we ALL know the (D) party has it's own political machine (thug-ish Chicago Politics anyone???... anyone... Bueller... Bueller...).

A lot may happen over these next 111 days until Nov 6. Until then... right now... I just don't know.


1:59 PM

Tom said...

I'm still voting for Romney over Obama.

1:32 PM

A Secular Franciscan said...

It will be a tough choice for folks in states in play.

9:19 AM

Joe Anderson said...

Dale Ahlquist is dead wrong on this issue. To read why, visit my article here: ‎

9:18 PM

Post a Comment


Did you hear what he said? Abortion for rape and incest and "health and life of the mother." That is Roe v. Wade and it equals abortion on demand. In Doe v. Bolton, the companion decision, the court defined the woman's "health" to include physical health, mental health, the woman's family situation, and her age. To sum up, it was abortion in the first three months for no reason; abortion in the last six for any reason. Unborn babies are just so much trash to both presidential candidates. Romney is one of the men C.S. Lewis described as "without chests." He has no heart and he appears to use his intellect to reason out whatever position is necessary to get elected. (Obama too, of course.) I'm guessing Romney embraces this position to make himself more palatable to the "women's vote." But to pro-life women, his position is repulsive and repugnant. To watch a grown man smile as he supports the murder of little babies is to see a bully at work.

Let's face it, politics seems to demolish virtue and magnanimity among men and make them bullying cowards. This was certainly a low moment for Romney. He also appears to have a death wish. Can he really believe that pro-lifers are so mindless they will support him no matter what he says? Ah...but they have no place to go? Some disagree. Dale Ahlquist, President of the American Chesterton Society, wrote in a recent issue of the Chesterton Review that he will not vote for Romney. The magazine is not on line, but here's an interesting post about the article which I have not read but hope to since I respect Dale's opinion.

Obama or Romney what a Morton's fork! God help us with these two despicable candidates as America's choice for president. May Our Savior give all voters wisdom and understanding as they go to the polls and rescue us from venal men.

Posted by Mary Ann Kreitzer at 8:45 PM

Labels: 2012 election, Morton's fork, Obama or Romney, politics, Romney favors abortion for rape incest and life of mother


servo said...

Rummy is so full of crap it's begun to spill over onto Ryan. So now we're granting 'health of the mother' now? What does he have left now- no abortions for comedy purposes?

August 27, 2012 9:43 PM

servo said...

Sorry to double-post, but had another Deep Thought.

"Can he really believe that pro-lifers are so mindless they will support him no matter what he says?"

To be honest, some of them will. They'll vote for Satan incarnate if he claimed he was kinda-sorta-more-anti-abortion than Moloch. I mean, they voted for McCain...

I can understand the lesser of two evils approach, but at what point can we consider the lesser so evil as not to be worthy of even grudging support?

If somebody is going to do that, so be it. I'm not going to bother.

August 27, 2012 9:48 PM

Anonymous said...

Paul Ryan holds the same position too.You will never find a candidate that is 100 percent pro-llife.

August 28, 2012 4:50 AM

Anonymous said...

I will probably vote for Romney and Paul Ryan here in California as at least I do not think either will make Catholic organizations and businesses pay for insurances that pay for the birthcontrol pill (a carcinogen that helps cause breast cancer and makes it worse) or abortions. The Catholic Church needs to get off the govenment dole as it has only made conditions for the Church worse, and let us face the fact that many people who call themselves Catholic are really not by any stretch of the immagination. Some of them do finally come around to Church teaching when properly catechized, but some never will do so because they never will believe in Church teaching.

August 28, 2012 12:10 PM

A Joyful Noise said...

Misunderstanding can occure when you don't hear all the facts.

Obama is SO much worse, that Romney will look like a saint comparred to OB.

August 28, 2012 5:21 PM

John J. Jakubczyk said...

Please consider what is currently at stake. The current president must be replaced. if he wins a second term, he will continue to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights, he will continue t fund Planned Parenthood - meaning more dead babies, and he will appoint judges who will shred the constitution.

Romney is not perfect and has lots of issues BUT he is far better than Obama, who thinks that he can get the Catholic vote all the while attacking our religious freedom.

Romney's pick of Paul Ryan showed real respect for our constituency. Ryan has NOT caved on his 100% pro-life position. His exact words were that Romney's position is a good start. It is far better than Obama.

So lets see - vote for Romney and we can -

Stop funding PP - good;

Select pro-life judges - good;

Stop ObamaCare - good;

Protect religious freedom - good;

Defend marriage - good;

Reinstate Mexico city policy - good.

Investigate PP for criminal activities - good.

We live in an imperfect world. We must do what we can with what we have.

August 28, 2012 10:59 PM

Ray Schneider said...

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. Life is composed of decisions that involve compromise whenever anything becomes at all complicated.

If you watched the RNC then you saw testimonials from people whom Gov. Romney helped in all walks of life. You will not see anything like that from Obama.

Gov. Romney is a decent human being and he's been living an honorable life. He is more pro-life than the opposition by far. We live in a secular world that makes it difficult even to defend natural rights because it is a world that is degrading on almost every plane.

We can only do what we can do to hold off evil and that means vote for the least imperfect candidate and strive to increase virtue and goodness in the world.

August 31, 2012 2:06 PM

Anonymous said...

Romney has grandchildren born via a gestational surrogate through IVF. I don't think any candidate would fit your 100% pro-life bill.

August 31, 2012 3:02 PM

servo said...

You can't promote goodness by voting for evil, lesser or otherwise. It's amazing how hopelessly in thrall to the Republicans some people are. They'll keep shoveling crap your way if you keep taking it.

Decent human beings don't promote sodomy and child murder.

August 31, 2012 6:20 PM

Joe Anderson said...

Listen friends, we've got to get this right. This election is not a joke or some kind of game in the playground. This is about real issues affecting real lives.

We cannot sacrifice the good in our pursuit of the ideal. Romney is not the ideal candidate. We all know that. But he is good - especially compared to the only other possible option at this point - another term with President Obama. President Obama is both absolutely and relatively bad on all issues involving moral absolutes in this election: marriage, religious freedom, economic and other human freedoms and, most importantly, defense of the most weak and innocent in our society.

There is no moral or rational basis for not supporting Mitt Romney. Let me repeat that, there is absolutely no moral or rational argument for not supporting Romney in this election.

You can read my articles on these issues here:

October 13, 2012 9:37 PM

RecoveringFeminist said...

There is no discernible difference between Romney and Obama. I will not betray the Catholic Church and "sell" my vote for 30 pieces of silver. I will either vote third party or write in God. Viva Christo Rey!

The Lesser of Two Evils is Still Evil!

Never compromise on the truth, Pope insists

"... So we choose the lesser evil, thinking we have been saved from the great evil, when all the while satan's real purpose was to bring about the evil we have chosen... ." "The Father's Tale", p. 496, Michael O'Brien

We've had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence!~~St. Catherine of Siena

If people are scandalized at the Truth, it is better to allow the birth of scandal, than to abandon the Truth.~~Pope St. Gregory the Great

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping

the foundations of justice from beneath new enerations.--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

October 16, 2012 5:19 PM

servo said...

Oh, so now voting for St. Lesser Evil is a moral and rational imperative. I guess I'm a bad, crazy guy then. Yeah, there is a reason not to vote for Romney- he is pro-abortion and kinda-sorta pro-gay. There is a reason one *could* vote for him, but saying they *have* to is nuts. This neo-con thinking in Catholic circles is getting ridiculous.

I guess people are never going to wake up and throw off the yoke of the Republicans. They have you right where they want you, and will just continue to string you along with garbage candidates.

October 16, 2012 10:43 PM

Why Dale Ahlquist is Wrong about Mitt Romney

The Public Square Add comments

Jul 152012

Dale Ahlquist is dead wrong and we have a duty to support Mitt Romney and the Republican Party in the upcoming general election. Here at A Sensible Life we cannot shy away from pointing out error, even when expressed by one whom we otherwise hold in high regard.

I was saddened to see Dale Ahlquist’s editorial in the May/June issue of Gilbert Magazine. As his thesis Mr. Ahlquist asserted that he would not vote for Mitt Romney in the upcoming presidential election. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Ahlquist. Unfortunately, I found his reasoning in this case very weak and his conclusion to be both dangerous and unsound.

Mr. Ahlquist spent much of his editorial describing how George Bush became the Republican Party nominee for president in 2000 and dedicated additional space listing the deficiencies of the Bush presidency, ignoring the pro-life, pro-freedom successes of that same presidency. He admits his cynicism toward the Republican Party. Perhaps his uncurbed cynicism has blinds him to the real differences between the only two parties in this country who have any possibility of winning a presidential election. His uncurbed cynicism leads also to his unsupported assertion that the nomination of Mitt Romney is, “all about money.”

Mr. Ahlquist justly draws a parallel between the big business tendencies of the Republican Party and the big government tendencies of the Democrat Party. He also points out, correctly, that the Republican Party has contributed to the expansion of government rather than succeeding in reducing its scope. However, in the interest of making his case, Mr. Ahlquist overstates the role of Republican Party in growing government. He also ignores the support from the Republican Party for small business and fails to recognize that it is always the Democrat Party that pushes hardest for government expansion and that the Republican Party when in power generally slows or stops the growth, though rarely succeeding in actually reducing government reach. He also ignores the profound differences between the parties with regard to political philosophy; differences to be seen in the Republican view of the Constitution as an enshrinement of individuals’ rights and a curb to government power. This view of the Constitution is most evident in Republicans’ appointments to the courts, which for the most part have been excellent in the last thirty years. There have been some disappointments in this area but no Democrat would ever have appointed Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito or Antonin Scalia.

All of this said, the most glaring and disappointing deficiency in Mr. Ahlquist’s editorial is his failure to recognize the importance of the upcoming general election in the context of the ongoing battle for the soul of our country. He fails altogether to draw any distinction between the two viable parties in our country with regard to issues such as the secularization of the political philosophy of our national government, defense of life, protection of marriage, human freedom, freedom of conscience, regulatory and tax burdens on small business, etc. Is Mitt Romney perfect on these issues? No rational and informed individual would claim that he is. However, there are members of Congress who understand what needs to be done in these areas and stand ready to do so. Mitt Romney may not be the boldest leader on all the issues that lie before us but mark this well, without a Republican in the White House (and Romney is our only option at this point) there is absolutely no chance that the good men and women whom we have elected to Congress will make any progress on the road to fixing the ills of our country.

It is an impoverished view of our civic responsibility to suggest that because we do not wholly agree with the results of the nomination process we will refuse to vote in the general election (or we will vote for some unelectable third party candidate).

I cannot state this too strongly, a vote for President Obama is a vote for the current steep downward trajectory of our country; a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for a presidency that will at worst decrease this trajectory and a presidency that has the potential (even if that potential be slim) to turn the trajectory upward. Make no mistake about it, to fail to vote for Mitt Romney in November is to cast half a vote for President Obama. This truth remains, no matter how loudly you claim non- support of the current administration.

Mr. Ahlquist to many stands as the arbiter of Chestertonian thought in the United States. It saddens me that he would publicly take this position and by doing so potentially draw many votes away from a much-needed victory in the battle for the American soul. Don’t forget, Mr. Ahlquist, God can write straight even with bent instruments like Mitt Romney and you and me. I will close with a remark of Chesterton’s from What’s Wrong with the World, “Men have never wearied of political justice; they have wearied of waiting for it.” Please do not weary of waiting for political justice here in the United States. And please do not express weariness, despair and cynicism by failing to do all necessary to replace the current secular administration with one that holds a brighter potential.


Popular posts from this blog

Bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx "Exemption" Letter & Stated: "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary"

Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx " exemption" letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin...docx(20KB)) and stated that "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary":  COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 |   [Date]   To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious

Does Francis's "Right-hand Man" Parra have a "Sexual Predation against Seminarians, Adultery, and even a Deadly Sex Game...[that] 'might even be a Scandal Surpassing that of McCarrick'"?

  Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra with Francis Today, the Call Me Jorge website asked "What could be so important that Francis interrupted his weekly adulation [Audience] session?": Pope gets a phone call during the Audience. Haven’t seen this before. Then he quickly leaves and says he will be back. — The Catholic Traveler (@MountainButorac) August 11, 2021 It was Abp. Mons. Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, Substitute for the Secretariat of State, who was involved in the recent scandal of mismanagement during the acquisition of a € 300 million building in London. Still no word on what the phone call was about . [] Who is Archbishop Edgar Robinson Peña Parra ? Parra according to the Catholic Herald is Francis's "right-hand man"[] In 2019, Life Site News reported that Parra alleged

Might it be Good for all of us & for Francis to Read about the "Gruesome Death of Arius"?

  I have read the letters of your piety , in which you have requested me to make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians , in consequence of which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death of Arius . With two out of your three demands I have readily undertaken to comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the heresy . But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which has taken place among you concerning the heresy , has issued in this question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the Church ; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his death, as thinking that the question woul