Answer to the question: 150% PRO MITT. If his party thought the sun revolved around the earth that is exactly what he would say until he got in front of cameras then he would take the correct fact. Then later his boys would say oh well, he didn't mean it. FORGETABOUTIT. I say FORGET ABOUT MITT!! I pray mightily we will. His presidency and his boys in his band are LETHAL. He has NO principles NONE at all except Mitt is the center of HIS universe!

The truth about abortion as a political issue is that while Roe was a very bad decision, very few pro life politicans would seek to overturn it. Not Mitt, not virtually anyone else.  The issue is just thrown around as a "woman's" issue, as if that is all women care about.  Mitt would have been slaughtered in the governor's race if he had said he is pro life, but as governor he would do nothing to take the right away.  He had to fudge it, because the Vennochis of the world would never accept any form of pro life from a candidate.

Barack Obama is the real scoundrel on this issue.  In the Illionois state legislature, he opposed a law that would require giving medical aid to babies who survive abortion attempts.  That is just radical.  He would prefer to see babies die outside the womb, then to appear in any way look like he would change abortion laws.  Another Obama truth that the media overlooks.

Did you really use trust and Romney in the same sentence?  The only thing we can trust Romney to do is help Romney.

Just another example of how much Romney's core values differ from those not born into money and political power. As Fehrnstrom said, he just shakes the etch-a-sketch for each audience and tells them what he thinks they want to hear.   In the words of Paul Tsongas, Panderer would be apt description.

If there is any hope of having intelligent, thoughtful discussion about these issues, it's going to have to go differently.  Anyone stuck at the level of a simple-minded, angry 16 year old needs to go back to their video games and leave the driving to the adults.

The question was answered in the headline, he's pro-Mitt and will say absolutely anything to get elected.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/romney-should-not-be-the-next-president?SESS114527ea5a5d387d47a94359ecc5984e=google

Ms. Vennochi - the question is,"Who would function as the better President?" The definitive answer is,  "Gov. Mitt Romney."

The answer is supported with the following attributes of Gov.Mitt Romney: a) skills & administration & temperment - proven by his successful collaboration as Gov. of Massachustts, and his turn around of the Winter Olympics; b) knowledge - proven by his successful management style and  getting the job done with available resources; and love of country - strong family history grounded in Americana - proven by his family ties, committment to supporting friends & community, church attendance & strong family values; c) temperment - proven by his history of working for his community, supporting his family demonstrating his strong work ethic and goals to make the world a better place.Gov. Mitt Romney is not a man who needs a 4 year training period to try & learn the job.

Clint Eastwood was right, "Obama is the biggest Hoax perpretrated on the American people."

This is the liberal press (redundent phrase) desparately trying to keep women whipped into a frenzy lest they even consider voting for Romney.  When Obama has a timely reversal regarding his views on gay marriage, he is hailed by the press as brave and compasionate.  if Romney veers at all on anything he is a flip flopping lying scoundrel.  Even Bush knew to not pursue legislation on banning abortion and neither will Romney. He has repeatedly said this.  There are far more important and pressing matters to attend to and unlike Democrats chasing gay marriage, dream acts, and anything else to drum up votes, Republicans will attend to the business of governing the nation.

At the risk of attracting venom and bile filled statements,  I wish to ask my fellow commentors a simple question.  Why is this thing called "women's rights" the most powerful determinent of a voters choice?  Is this the one and only thing?   The other question I wish anyone would clarify for me is why is abortion the only answer to having sex without conception.   It would seem clear to my slimple mind that a woman could surgically prevent conception and eliminate her need undergo repeated abortions.  Men do it all the time.  It looks almost like a medical industry's profit center.   After all is said and done,  when you wish to stop growing corn, you stop plowing the fields and planting the seeds.

"Do you intend to pursue any specific legislation with regard to abortion?" His answer--"There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda" Romney went on to describe his intention to reinstate the Mexico City policy banning foreign aid for organizations that provide abortions abroad.

Mitt has never changed his position when he has said 'I will govern as a ....' --When he said he was going to govern as pro-choice, he did.  If he says he will be president as a pro-life candidate, he will.  Being a pro-life candidate doesn't mean you support any crazy anti-abortion plan that comes along, though Democrats would like to sell that to you...

Some of these globe writers are practically fiction writers.  There is no "war on woman."  Doesnt exist.  It saddens me that many Democrats have no problem making up lies to win campaigns rather than pushing their own agendas and highlighting legitimate differences with their opponents philosphy of government. 

People should be free to make their own decisions regarding their bodies.  However, I certainly don't want to foot any part of the bill for that decision unless it's a true medical necessity.  Nor do I believe that contraceptives & ED treatments should be covered by any type of insurance.  You want to play? You need to pay.

Being Pro life is not being anti woman.  It is saying that we dont know where life begins in the womb and to arbitrarily draw a line is wrong.  It is even further morally questionable to attack those who only seek to protect unborn children as having a vendetta against woman. 

You can be sure Biden (pro-choice, even though Catholic) will go after Ryan's hard line position in tonight

debate.

What is too frequently ignored or not understood is the biological basis of life. "Life" does not begin in the womb.  Life does continue there, at least potentially.  A live sperm fuses with a live egg.  If that fused egg can anchor, it is likely to grow into a fetus that might finally be born.  There are a number of situations which can cause a natural termination and I’ll leave that discussion to OB-GYN specialists.

Before we had medically educated people who could have presented a neutral description of the whole issue from fertilization to birth, someone decided that the first time movement by the fetus could be detected, a special ‘infusion’ had taken place instead of simply saying, “We can detect movement.”

Whether that ‘infusion’ takes place or not is a discussion best left to religious philosophers.  In the meantime, women and their discussions with their doctors is supposed to be private and protected.  We have no justification for encouraging, let alone permitting, any government intrusion into such discussions.  Women have the right to think and decide for themselves what happens to them as people and as women. 

No man has the right to violate another person or that person’s rights; those men who seek to legalize such violations would not accept the situation if it were reversed.  Hypocrisy is not limited to men but there seems to be a profound predisposition in that direction.  This political season is making that more apparent every day.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where fearful fathers pass on their fear and anger to their children by the way they rear them.  We might not ever reach a time where all people are treated as equals by our laws but that does not justify the craven attacks that take place every day to diminish the legal stature of women and deprive them of the dignity and respect they are due.

Abortion disproportionately destroys black babies and female babies. I guess Democrats think that is a good thing.

Romney uses a Kaleidoscope for a mirror when giving his firmly held viewpoints.  

I thought Romney's stance on personhood was that it begins at incorporation....

How come you never see these pro-life advocates fighting this hard for child support?  No, "Welfare" Moms are the scourge of the country to them.  They are no more pro-life than Romney is.  They are Pro-Money.  Keep the poor poor and subservient.  The wealthy have always been able to get get safe abortions even before Roe v Wade, it is the poor who will suffer.  Romney's agenda isn't Anti-Woman, it's Anti-99%.

Flipp Romney is at it again.  Tell them what you think they want to hear.

I really dislike the abortion debate, mostly because it is such a phony debate.  Since its inception a part of this debate has been the idea that poor women irrationally get pregnent time and time again and then use abortion as a form of birth control.  On the flip side of this we get a completely contrarian view that poor women are having babies to get on welfare. The stupidity of this debate is that it is the same people making both statements. 

Abortion, partial-birth abortion call it what you will.  What you cannot change is that it is a medical proceedure carried out for medical or psychological reasons.  Whether you approve of the reasons or not are irrelavent as you are not the one having the proceedure.  Of a woman believes abortion is immoral am I or any doctor going to say you must not do it.  Of course not, even at the expenxe of her life. That is her choice.  It is also a womans choice if she needs to have one.  It is not my body, nor my choice.  I cannot speak for my wife, it is her body, her choice, not mine.  Do I speak for God, of course not.  Is she required to answer to me for her moral choices.  I think not.  This isn't the 1700's.  I despise this debate because it is phony.  It is merely an opportunity for some to sound holy.  You wish to please god do it in your life I don't think what you impose upon others counts.

As to Mitt.  Mitt doesn't have an opinion, it isn't political.  Mitt is simply a man who will say anything to obtain what he wants.  He might do fine as a Pres. who knows.  But he would never be someone I would associate with or consider a person of integrity.  Frankly I honestly don't like the man.  It's not the politics.  I'm purely biased.  I don't like the person, Mitt Romney.