Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AndyJackson; trisham; metmom; wagglebee
just want to get their hands on the levers or power to legislate morality. -- but no one does. Trisham in particular said she was adamantly AGAINST government interfering in this

I believe government action in reducing marriage to just a contract, to being cradle to grave welfare etc. has had a number of consequences.

I'm against divorce, but it's not govt's job to legislate "no divorce", as I recognise some cases where it unfortunately, despite my moral misgivings, seems like the right case

however, I would like to see us go back to a time when it was not morally acceptable to "divorce first, talk later"

For contraception and abortion -- for the first, let it be available, it's not govt's business to get involved in this (of course one could then argue the same for marijuana etc.), but more important to ME is that we morally accept it and then, being human society, use this to bed-hop

On abortion, I'm sorry, but I see that as just black and white -- it is baby killing. The only case where I stay silent is where the birth would harm the physical health of the mother. And I KNOW (going by the statistics on abortion in the US and Poland in comparison) that less than 0.5% of the abortions are due to this. On that matter unfortunately I am morally absolute and I find that I cannot in good conscience budge from that position.

What happens if a politician I would like to vote for is fantastic on the budget but is pro-abortion, and I mean pro-abortion rather than "I abstain from saying anything" or "ok, ok, I'll let the status quo be" --> that politician I would not vote for, I'm sorry

If the politican is a coward on the topic (abstains), I don't like it, but would vote for that person

If the politician is weakling on that matter (just goes along with the majority or does not do anything to change that legislation), if I have no better choice I would reluctantly vote for that person or abstain from voting (unless they were standing against an Obambot, then they get my vote!)

I've had this discussion with wagglebee before on a similar topic "vote for Romney or not" where I said I would only vote for Romney if it was him against Obama. Yet wagg and others pointed out to me that a vote for such a RINO would lead to a moral decay in the overall GOP and would be just a temporary victory -- in fact not really a victory at all.

603 posted on 08/22/2011 7:22:37 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies ]


To: Cronos

I would rather have Romney than Obama.
To sit out an election , especially this one, is the height of stupidity.
Elections come every 4 years. you can vote the RINO out then. Obama can do a lot of damage to this country in 4 years.
I am leaning toward Perry.


605 posted on 08/22/2011 7:26:45 PM PDT by kaila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies ]

To: Cronos; wagglebee

Excellent post, Cronos.


628 posted on 08/23/2011 6:38:23 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson