Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis
(Post 1068045)
Then the response would be the same, Jim.
I believed a lot of stuff years ago that when I look back, with a little age and experience, now see was not reality. Growing up changes folks' perspective in a lot of cases.
If you are saying that - hypothetically- he forced, coerced, or in any way had something to do with encouraging someone to get an abortion WHILE he was promoting a pro-life stance, then that would be the definition of hypocrisy.
anything outside of that scenario should have zero bearing on one's impression of him and is categorically meaningless
|
Just saw this this morning, and was going to say something similar about the hypothetical premise of the question, but your synopsis is excellent.
In addition I'd like to point out to Jim, that the election also has impacts on the murderous practice of abortion. Yes, that's what I call it because that's what it is. It is a series of actions willfully undertaken, with accomplices, that ends a human life. Period.
Generalizing: If a candidate previously in his life undertook an action that a voter today thinks is reprehensible, but has since evolved to a position where he is on the right side of the issue, and has repeatedly indicated they will act as the voter wants him to upon taking office, does the voter in good conscience support that candidate?
In other words, if Trump coerced abortion in the past, now wants to appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme court, does one stay home and not support him when Hillary will clearly stack the court with more pro-abortion Justices?
If there was not an impact for the issue of abortion, and one was a single issue voter, I see Jim's logic. But if not single-issue voter and if the effects of not supporting the candidate are worse for the issue, why would one willfully "win the battle and lose the war?"
A similar question could be asked of Bernie supporters who despise the influence of Wall Street. When Bernie drops out in the near future, can they support Hillary when she encompasses so much of what they can't stand? Speeches for fees of $675,000 a pop, given to Wall Street execs, and presumably not calling them out but being supportive of them? We won't know until transcripts are public. But those voters similarly are tested in their commitment to the cause. And just as I said above, the single-issue voters who object to Wall Street corruption should stay home, since she has in the more recent past acted in ways they find reprehensible. If they are not single-issue and they believe her newfound commitment to socialistic causes, they should support her.
When the Volstead act implemented Prohibition was first proposed, if there was a candidate known to be a recovering alcoholic who used to binge drink, a behavior the teetotaler would find repulsive, but he promised to support the Volstead Act upon his election, how should the teetotaler have voted?
