Wednesday, July 22, 2009

"Well, I Really Didn't Mean It..."

Obama's "science czar" (he has way too many of these for a democracy) once defended forced abortion and other depopulation absurdities. Of course, he is now dissembling.

5 comments:

Bill said...

Doug:

The book is 30-years old ... haven’t you ever changed your mind about something in your job or about an issue over the last 30 years? Heck, I’ve changed my mind about how best to handle issues, both professional and political, over the last 30 days. If you want to criticize him about being pro-choice, that’s totally understandable. But can we focus on his current, or at least recent, stances on issues? Not something he wrote during the Carter administration.

Also, changing your mind about an issue isn't a sign a weakness. Lets say he wholeheartedly, 100% embraced forced abortion. But over the course of his life, through experiences or education or whatever, he now feels differently. What’s wrong with that? Learning as you go and keeping an open mind aren’t personality faults.

Doug Groothuis said...

If someone ever held these views without fully repenting of them, he is untrustworthy and dangerous. Moreover, this mindset fits the Obama team--extreme liberalism, statism.

Bill said...

What would a public offical have to do in order for you to be satisfied that he/she fully repented on an issue?

Bill said...

Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, was a member of a group called, AIP, for seven years (95-02), that wanted Alaskans to vote on seceding from the Union. Does that mean that his mindset fits the Palin team? Granted no one dies if a State secedes, but that is certainly an extreme view, should he have to repent?

pgepps said...

Doug, something tells me that the party that grilled Clarence Thomas over decades-old, flimsy charges and beat Trent Lott up for broadly praising Strom Thurmond without specifically distancing himself from certain of Thurmond's politcal associations in the early 60's--well, they ought to be able to tolerate a little criticism of the obvious adherence of their people to the prevailing, eugenicist rationale for promoters of abortion leading into and throughout Roe v. Wade and the 70s. That said, if someone can articulate a different view, critical of an old and abominable one, which they now hold--should we allow such a person the chance to prove the change?