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
'The Other Slavery' is painful reading. We learn that settlers not only took Native American lands virtually without compensation but often their labor and lives as well.
The Washington Redskins must now also contend with PC Indian activists.
The Church can engage in the work of racial reparations, but only while placing the project within a broader moral framework.