Armagh

Just so's they don't get admitted to the GOP! The Republicans don't want them, either. Not because they're pro-life, but because they're pro-dependency.

Armagh

And here's the remainder of the saying on your avatar: but YOU must remain silent so I can remain comfortable. Kinda left that out, didn't you, 3jack?

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Pull your head out and Google pro-choice Republicans.

zillaorange

don't like the new pope, Francis ?, at all ! He should keep his nose out of politics & stick to doctrine !!!

JimMe

I'm old enough to remember when Mario Cuomo, Gov Andrew Cuomo's father, was Gov of New York, and he said that he was a Roman Catholic and personally didn't believe in Abortion, but it was Legal in New York State and as Gov he had the responsibility to enforce that Law regardless of his personal/religious beliefs...

So, even though I'm a GOP Conservative Atheist - and yes, there are GOP Conservatives who are Atheist - I can see how a Roman Catholic Gov can support Abortion...

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

Enforcing the law and agreeing with it are two very different things. Plus, Mario Cuomo could have allowed for it while not providing finances for it and he could have done everything possible to minimize it occurring.

Would you have a problem with disagreeing with genocide but since it's the law, you'd enforce it?

Big Bass

Sieg heil!!! Now the total screaming idiot, perez, is telling his followers how they should think. SIEG HEIL!!!!!!!

JimMe

Yes, I would... When you run for an Office like Governor, you should know you have an obligation to enforce existing Laws of that State... If that State allows Genocide and you want to be the top Executive of it, you run for that position knowing you're going to have to enforce Genocide...

What would your alternative be?!? An Executive Order to not enforce a Law?!? Oh wait... Pres Obama has already done that with TrespassingIllegal Aliens...

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

You are made of different stuff from me.

Ricktloml

s

The Republican party has traditionally supported the pro-life stance. I hope they continue to do so. While I don't think the RNC should tell anyone they are not welcome, they need to keep their principles concerning social issues. I would hope these pro-choice Republicans take a long hard look at why pro-life is part of the party's platform. There are religious AND moral reasons to reject abortion. If it bothers people to consider the religious reasons for being anti-abortion, everyone should consider how savage and barbaric abortion is, and oppose it because a civilized society does not butcher unborn children, by the thousands each year. And until there is irrefutable proof that life does not begin at conception,(and advances in medical science tend to show more evidence of life than not), a civilized society does not take the chance that they could be murdering a baby in a most horrific way. If Democrats want to openly prevent civilized people from joining their party, maybe anyone with a conscience should run as fast and as far away as they can from such a party

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I agree. I am against abortion. I believe a supposed civilized society abortion is barbaric.

Therese

Yes, laughable, that a pro-abortion party is KILLING its potential members.!!

Therese

The SCOTUS never denied the HUMANITY of the unborn child. They couldn't..HUMAN DNA precluded such a stupid statement. Instead they said that THEY, being Judges, could NOT determine when the unborn child becomes a PERSON. This topic they said was better left to the medical community.

Again, although the Constitution does NOT have the word PRIVACY in it, the SCOTUS 'found it' (privacy) in the penumbra (shadows) of the constitution...the 'gray' areas. THUS, SCOTUS, the JUDICIAL BRANCH - whose duty is to INTERPRET the law, actually MADE law in this Roe v Wade decision. Thus Scotus went beyond its Judicial boundaries, to interpret the law...by MAKING LAW...based on finding something new in the shadows of the Constitution, called PRIVACY. NIX...

Also..When is the unborn child to be considered a PERSON? Who cares!!! The fact is, that we ALWAYS presume on the human LIFE of the unborn as a person. Point... > When we have a mine collapse, trapping miners, we don't AUTOMATICALLY presume them DEAD. No..We do ALL IN OUR POWER to HOPE they are not, and spend whatever is necessary for that hope, because they MIGHT be alive. Well, the unborn MIGHT be persons. So who cares. Your guess is as good as mine. They are as vulnerable as the miners in a collapse. Always believing in LIFE we ASSUME on the life of the miners, just as we ASSUME on the PERSONHOOD of the unborn. It's called LOGIC.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

I believe there is a right to privacy but since it is not mentioned as a right for the federal government to defend, then by the Ninth (or is it the Tenth) Amendment, it devolves to the states & the people to quibble over.

buffalo Loc: Texas

Although, the U. S. Constitution contains no expressed right to privacy, the Bill of Rights, does reflect the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. Additionally, although somewhat ambiguous, the 9th Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."

I do not think that covers the wrongful taking of human life even the life of the unborn.