My first post to this thread, #4, was more in the nature of a generalized gripe about politicians who try to have it both ways. The classic example would be, “I’m personally opposed to abortion but committed to enforcing the established law.”
I just don’t understand how they can devote their careers to enforcing laws protecting a practice they consider murder (or evil, or a mortal sin).
Lately I’m also hearing a lot of federalist talk, which may or may not be intellectually valid. I have gray areas myself on these things, so I realize it isn’t necessarily dishonest to say “the states should decide, and I’m now a candidate for federal office, so...”
But sometimes, I’m sure they just say it so they can have it both ways. They have their personal beliefs, and they don’t uphold them or try to advance them. Instead, they’re only concerned with advancing themselves.
As for Romney in particular, I don’t trust him and he’s got more positions than the Kama Sutra. Therefore, while I don’t know with 100% accuracy where he really stands on states rights, the compartmental technique I described seems to me a good match for the way Romney reconciles his beliefs to his audience. I could be wrong; I sure hope so.
We all need to do a lot of soul-searching before we approve of a man who would be our leader. Examine not just him, but also ourselves and the standards by which we accept him.
Romney may be the candidate in November, so I pray his conservatism is genuine, but solid evidence remains lacking.
:(
I agree that the idea of being “personally opposed” to abortion but supporting the right to choose is a special case that makes no sense. In GENERAL, that position DOES make sense, but not in the case of abortion.
But suppose you opposed abortion NOT because you thought it was really murder, but simply because you thought it sent the wrong message, or thought it was a harmful choice for the women themselves. Then it WOULD make sense to personally oppose it but not want to restrict a person’s right to choose to harm themselves or send messages you don’t agree with.
BTW, think about all the good pro-life judges we have on the bench. Except at the Supreme Court level, EVERY one of those judges has taken an OATH to rule FOR abortion, following the Supreme Court precedent. And they DO rule in that fashion, even though they are personally opposed to abortion.
Your “gripe” would apply to judges willing to take an oath to enforce the law even though they are personally opposed.
I’m not sure I could be a judge, because I couldn’t rule to allow an abortion, even knowing if I didn’t a higher court would simply overturn my ruling, and eventually I would be removed from my position, as happened to Judge Moore on the freedom of religion issue.