The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

John McCain is the only republican that can win the national election.
If it's McCain vrs the unvetted Obama, it will be a cake walk

I'm exhausted by this election cycle. And frankly, I don't care about this specific issue. In fact, I think I flip-flopped my own thoughts on this one.

Aside from this example, Romney would probably make a decent president since he's not an international instigator like some of the others. And especially since he apparently has the intellect to distinguish between "red meat" comments for the base and the complexity of dealing with real issues and the compromise required.

He is certainly not the first public official on either side and either party to get caught in this. It is a fundamental problem with the argument itself. It is a issue that there is no clear perfect "side" to be on. This is not a debate about what a tax increase will or will not do, or a state vs federal rights issue that can be debated on various levels of government, tested, and results reviewed and changed. I think the black and white nature that both sides of the issue take to polarize the public on it is absolutely gross. Pro-life, pro-choice - just the names are complete pitfalls that unfortunately the press loves to use because of the caustic reaction it results in. I am not even close to being a Mitt Romney supporter but I can certainly emphasize with the guy for trying to lead with his heart on the issue and then getting caught in the unfair fabricated debate this issue has had for the past 40 years.

I can understand a change of heart on abortion. But HOW MANY TIMES can you go back and forth?

Thoughts: I don't like abortion but there has to be some compromise on the issue of abortion. We need education on both abstinence and safer sex, no abortions after the fetus could live on support in the hospital, and better counseling for women that are pregnant.

You are right, Mike. I've changed my mind about this issue, too, but only once! We just have to find a better way - through education of young women AND young men...I don't know the answer. I only know with great certainty that one side is not all right and the other all wrong. That's why we have to do better.

The problem is that Romney isn't just "changing his mind." He's not having genuine changes of feelings. No, he's trying to balance what is clearly his inner pro-choice mindset with his formal party platform (pro-life) and his constituents (pro-choice). But if you look at his record, it's plain to see that he's pro-choice. If he was elected, he would never touch Roe v. Wade.

And that's a very, very good thing. People who believe a fertilized egg is a person are more or less idiots. "Murder" is not simply the taking of a human life. Murder implies so much more than what takes place during an abortion, much less the morning-after pill.

A fertilized egg does not have an immediate family. It doesn't have a brain, nerves, a gender, any of the five senses or the ability to reason, which is what is supposed to set us apart from animals, right? A fertilized egg is little more than a clump of cells. I'm sick of this idiotic wedge issue. Lets just deport pro-lifers to Utah and put a wall around the state.

I don't have the answers, but it's hard for me to accept the scientific consensus on something like climate change, yet deny this is human life. Kind of easy to extrapolate if the odds approach 100% that one ends up with a kid.

I would have to agree that education works, but the anti-abortion side platform usually associates with limiting sexual education in schools. And according the the following headline from yesterday's papers:

""
Sex education in schools delays sex

New York, Dec 20 : Teenagers receiving sex education in schools are likely to delay sexual intercourse, a study has suggested.

A US government study published yesterday in the Journal of Adolescent Health, revealed that having some form of sex education helps delay teen sex.

In a national survey of more than 2,000 adolescents between 15 and 19 years old, the researchers found male teens who received sex education in school were 71 per cent less likely and female teens were 59 per cent less likely to have sexual intercourse before age 15.

""

Increase education would help reduce unwanted pregnancies. Less unwanted pregnancies would reduce abortions. Hmmm....

Doug B:

Using your logic then, if we force sterilization on high-risk youths, that would help reduce unwanted pregnancies too. Less unwanted pregnancies would reduce abortions. Hmmm....

Of course, according to those who think like Brian, I am "more or less" an idiot (so much for my Stanford Law degree ; )

You're doing the same thing. You're confusing "emergency contraception" and "morning-after pill" and "abortion" much as both sides of the "abortion" issue.

This is not one issue; it's many. And, frankly, I'd want a president who can understand it's not black and white.

So, if you're going to compare positions, please compare apples to apples. Don't let any organization define the terms for you unless you're willing to admit it and remain consistent with those definitions.

Using your logic then, if we force sterilization on high-risk youths, that would help reduce unwanted pregnancies too. Less unwanted pregnancies would reduce abortions. Hmmm....

Well d'uh - a bit radical but it might just work. J/K

How can discussing the issue cause harm? It is rather a large jump in logic to say lets use awareness as the first form of contraception to physical intervention by sterilization.

Although parent licensing might be a good idea....

I don't think abortion is the issue here at all. I have little doubt that Romney's personal beliefs are that abortion is abhorrent, based on nothing more than his unquestioned faith.

The issue is that Mitt Romney has proven to be unworthy of the voters trust on a number of issues, including abortion.

If a man can profess a position that is contrary to his own moral position for the purpose of winning contributions, endorsements and elections and then profess the opposite position, again, to win contributions, endorsements and votes, he is not to be trusted and should be denied the support of voters on both sides of the issue.

Ron Paul is the only candidate on either side for an immediate pullout from Iraq, returning our soldiers from around the world, and the resulting savings of $1 trillion per year that can then be used to meet our social obligations at home (Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, social security), repair our infrastructure (collapsing bridges and power grid, airports and waterways) and pay down the national debt. This will help the poor and middle class immensely. He is the only non flip flopper. Ron Paul just raised $6 million in one day. Why? Because he's beloved - we believe he could be another Washington or Jefferson. He is for liberty and freedom. We also gave him a blimp, whereas the other candidates are just hot air.

I'm glad the washington post took a look at this. It is clear and should be for ALL Republicans that Romney can not be trusted and will change his mind to get elected. He is a poor politician and the worst version of a flip flopper. The only reason he is in this election is because he is super rich.

He can't win in the General Election. He couldn't beat Kennedy in 1994 what makes any sane person think he can beat Clinton.

John McCain is solid pro-life and has been for a long time. McCain is the only one that can beat Hillary in the General Election. It is time for republicans to give McCain a second look - ESPECIALLY PRO-LIFE REPUBLICANS.

I have yet to see any column or news article at the Post comprehend the idea of a moderate position on abortion.

Giuliani has one. And he got sacked for it in the Post a few months back. He opposes Roe v. Wade, for its pathetic legal reasoning and in effect seizing power from the states. And he opposes partial-birth abortions. But he supports basically all other abortion rights. The WaPo column incredibly called those positions "inconsistent," which meant the author missed the point that not all people fit into the two opposing schools of thought on abortion. Rudy's is a moderate stance, one he's consistently held, and that I agree with 100%. One can attack him for not being "pro-choice" or "pro-life" enough to fit in with either partisan camp, but you can't fault him for inconsistency.

Here, Romney did apparently flip-flop like crazy over the "morning after" pill. Opposing it is equivalent to a diehard believe that a human life begins at conception while supporting in is equivalent to believe that human life begins....some time later. Perhaps he waffled on whether a few-days-old fetus is really a human life, but was he inconsistent elsewhere? If not I'd be inclined to give him a pass on this one.

Three pinocchios, without providing any evidence of a major shift in opinion on abortion, is steep. Since he did say he always came down on the side of life, he's stretching the definition of "life" to mean life soon after conception. One or at the most two pinocchios would have been fair.

Started out really liking this guy, but flip-flops, too clever by half statements and evasions are making him seem like a GOP Hillary Clinton. Everything to everybody.

Mc Cain, while I don't agree on some of his stances, leaves no doubt as to wins the character, trustworthiness and honesty race. The "Boston Glove", "Herald" and so many others are right. Senator Mc Cain is, by far, the best GOP candidate.

Someone named Jake D. makes the point that his Stanford Law (or "law") degree makes him something other than an idiot. He may be, but they are not necessarily incompatible. Harvard Law School is recognized as top-rate, too. We have, however, a graduate of that esteemed institution who is running for president of the United States.

His religion, one to which he strongly adheres, teaches its believers that the angel Moroni gave its founder some tablets that only the latter could see or touch. That founder read these tablets - even though they were in an unknown language and he was functionally illiterate - while looking in his hat or while looking through special stones.

Getting back to a state of idiocy, Jake D. is probably as qualified as Willard Mitt R.

In Mitt Romney's speech on his faith, he stated he would not let his faith interfere
with his job as president. Then he went on and said,"I will never leave the faith of my church or the faith of my fathers."
However, Mormons have never believed in "ABORTION" but, Romney was "Pro-Choice"
before he was "Pro-Life" now I would venture to say he left the faith of both church and father when he was Pro-Choice"
Then he became "Por-Life" seems like Mitt Romney's faith goes with his poitical agenda at the time.

This is in response to Brian's post Dec.20th. that the fertilized egg has no brain,nerves,gender,etc.
If you do not believe in God you will not understand the concept of the creation and birth process.
If you do believe in God then read your bible, Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"
Job 31:15 "Did not He who made me in the womb" and this is just a few that tells us God is the one that forms us before we even enter the womb. We already have a brain,nerves, gender, etc..
The pill, having ones tubes tied, a mans vasectomy, will not stop a pregnancie if it is God's will for you to be born.And I know this from fact, as women(like myself) that was on the pill and got pregrant, I've known women that had their tubes tied and got pregrant, and men that had vasectomies that got a women pregant.
Now, man can murder the unborn, just as you can murder someone already born abortion is murder to the unborn.Abortion is just another name for murder to try and clear the conscious from guilt, but it is still murder in God's eyes.
So, anyone that claims they believe in God and Jesus Christ can NEVER believe in abortion at no time, even if it is for a political agenda.And if one believes in God
Matt.12:36-37 "And I say unto you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment" (37) "For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words, you shall be condemed." Can you prove that these fertilized eggs have no brains, nerves, gender and if you think you can, then explain it and prove it please before just giving us words.

our company is professional in making all kinds of flip flop , please kindly visit our website : www.loveclogs.com
if you have any problem , kindly let me know.
sincerely yours
Peter

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.