Posted on 02/20/2006 4:02:32 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
It has been said "You are what you eat".
As in all struggling start up enterprizes, the starving but determined Carter clan subsisted mostly by eating the culls of the family business, for a long, long time.
Family business peanuts-family members, nuts.
Tsk! Tsk!
Straddle too wide and all you get for your trouble is a punch in the cojones
It's actually very logical. You are just too biased to see it.
You can be for the gov't getting out of our lives although you can be against the thing you are asking the gov't to get out of.
Wouldn't religion fit that bill? I don't want the gov't mandating us all be Christians but I am a Christian. I'm for something I want the gov't out of.
I differ with Carter on one thing. I believe that the STATES have the personal freedom to decide whether or not abortion should be legal although I personally am very much against abortion.
That doesn't make me a hypocrit. I don't think the gov't should be legislating morality.
Unless of course you want to be killed the next time you sleep with your neighbor's wife.
I agree with you, too.
I'm not sure why people find it so hard to believe that one can be opposed to abortion, but for a person's right to make their own choice, not someone else's. After all, it will be them standing in front of the throne on judgement day explaining this action, not me!
Does Fat Ted even bother to say he's "personally opposed" to abortion?
Yeah he still does pull out that line. Of course, like Jimmy, he, too, tried to play both ends against the middle. Someone unearthed a letter he sent to contributors in the first election after Roe in which he said he was strongly opposed to abortion. And lookee here, there was another letter in which--you guessed it--he said he was strongly for "a woman's right to choose"---in the same election cycle, sent to other contributors.
It's kind of like the people who said that they would never personally own a slave but refused to deny slaveowners their right to choose to own slaves.
I absolutely DESPISE people who say that, omg! Make up your flippin mind, get off the fence, sh*t or get off the freakin pot!
I don't know why this position is so hard to understand.
He is against men having abortions.
I'm thinking he pretty much has this position all tied up for himself.
I find it interesting how gays compare themselves to blacks during the civil rights movement, and that completely ridiculous comparison is let stand. Meanwhile, just as slaves were not considered fully human, unborn children...well, you know where I'm going with that. And the fact that you can complete that sentence yourself proves how apt the comparison is.
"And the fact that you can complete that sentence yourself proves how apt the comparison is."
And the fact that you brought it up in post #10 shows your clear thinking. Kudos to you. :)
I wasn't accusing you of that.. don't take me so literally. I simply made a point about morality of which you didn't understand.
I apologize that you took it personally. I don't know you or your neighbor's wife so I couldn't possibly know if you were sleeping with her.
LOL!
"Carter told Catholic audiences (and a gathering of bishops) that he opposed abortion and supported legislation to restrict it, thus cutting into Shriver's support. But he told feminist groups at the same time that he supported abortion rights (indeed, he had done so as governor of Georgia)."
Carter was being Clintonesque even before Clinton was!
Complete the parallel sentence:
"I do not believe in adults having sex with children, but ..."
would you finish it with "I firmly believe in the right to have a choice." ?
What moral line-drawing puts killing pre-born humans in the 'choice' camp where statutory rape would not be?
"Abortion is something I do not believe in"
This sentence is non-meaningful in my view. Usually, "do not believe in" is used to decribed agreement to facts or beliefs; your sentence could be taken at face value to mena that abortion is fictional. It is not. It kills over a million preborn humans.
of course, you dont mean it that way. You mean it to say that abortion is something you dont personally want to do.
I have never considered *either* tattoos *or* shoplifting,
and find them both bad habits.. so are we to consider both of those morally equivalent? Of course not. Saying you wont consider some particular action says almost *nothing* about the actual moral choice at hand involved in either case.
tattoos - that's a choice matter; shoplifting - that's a moral issue. It could be a matter of zero moral import or of great moral import and the vacuous statement about 'not believing in it' tells us nothing of the gravity of the issue. Which is abortion more like - tattoos or shoplifting?
It hides the question we face as a society on abortion, which is: "Is the more than one million pre-born humans killed each year in America through abortion a tolerable condition or an abbhorent one that must be changed?"
If you can answer *that* question, we might be getting somewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.