The “Catholic” Politician of 2001 & The Southern “Gentleman” of 1860
IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE?
No explanation is needed for what follows.
The “Catholic” Politician of 2001: “I am not in favor of abortion; indeed, personally I am opposed to it. But I do not feel it is my place to impose my convictions upon anyone else!”
The Southern “Gentleman” of 1860: “I am not in favor of slavery; indeed, personally I am opposed to it. But I do not feel it is my place to impose my convictions upon anyone else!”
+ +
The “Catholic” Politician of 2001: “I am not pro-abortion! I am pro-choice! I favor leaving the decision up to the woman and the woman alone. It is her decision — and no one else’s.”
The Southern “Gentleman” of 1860: “I am not pro-slavery! I am pro-choice! I favor leaving the decision up to the slaveholder and to him alone. It is his decision — and no one else’s.”
You May Also Enjoy
Precedent is a major component, but the law can become confused and contradictory when an underlying moral question is ignored.
Desert dwellers see things in their essentials, because a handful of water is precious and little stands between man and the forces of nature.
How else to think of drug use — by anyone, living anywhere — as but the most obvious evidence of nihilism, of despair?