http://news.yahoo.com/tenn-gop-congressmans-wife-had-2-abortions-192302678--election.html According to DesJarlais' testimony, the first of his ex-wife Susan's abortions was because she was taking an experimental drug that carried potential risks in pregnancy. The second came amid problems in their relationship. Well here we have another classic case of RW hypocrisy. Include his mistress, there's 3 abortions. RWers sure love to dish out morality.
Wow... who publishes such personal information, even if it comes out in court. This is some very hateful journalism... and sad that anyone would repeat it. Not Cool.
First one doesn't sound like an abortion... Still, I don't the relevancy of this... Even seeing that the second was obviously an abortion, this happened '01 or prior... People's minds change on things over time... I used to be anti-death penalty... Not so now...
Had them... I can see how it would seem hypocritical, and, if any of these were recent (which, I don't know about the instance with the patient, but the testimony in question is from '01, I believe), it would, in fact, be hypocritical... That doesn't seem to be the case though...
This may very well be why hes against abortion....which is hard to hold against him. Frankly I have more respect for his position knowing his has personally dealt with it.
I disagree. It's kind of like drug policy. If you used to smoke a lot of pot back in college, it would be rather hypocritical to support the War on Drugs later. Changing your opinion on something might make sense if you were never personally involved in the issue, but if you took advantage of a choice that you're now advocating the end of... well, that is pretty hypocritical regardless of the time that has passed. Would Obama be better off having gone to jail for cocaine use? Would Bush? Of course not. By the same token, clearly, this Congressman's wife wouldn't have been better off going to jail for having an abortion.
Are we really expected to believe there are no prominent "pro-life" Republicans whose wife or daughter has never "taken a weekend trip to Switzerland for a 'spa' treatment" after a drunken weekend or a senior prom??? "Pro-life" is about one thing....no abortions for POOR women, so the "pro-lifers" can pat themselves on the back and in public, tell everybody how "moral" they are.
Basically. The government takes a similar tact in the difference between how it prosecutes crack vs. cocaine. Crack is a poor man's drug, whereas cocaine is a rich man's.
Thats false. Abortion was championed by margrate sanger, she wanted to abort the poor and blacks in particular. democrats call it "progress"....
In a lot of cases, it's the difference between abortion and having a child in a really messed up household. Remember the woman in Florida that was essentially homeless and had 12 kids? She was better getting abortions than going through with all those pregnancies.
Using part of your post as an example, is it hypocritical for either Obama or Bush to be against drug use now? Or any parent that may have smoked weed as a youth? Is it hypocritical for them to tell their kids that drugs are bad (Mmkay)? I don't think so... I think on a lot of moral issues, people's POV's chenge over time, usually due to personal experiences...
Telling your child drugs are bad is one thing. Removing or advocating the continued prohibition of a choice from EVERYONE while having made that choice yourself is another.
I see what you're getting at... I'm just saying that abortion is one of those moral issues that people tend to change POV about over time... Maybe he was OK with abortion before, and, the congressman had a personal experience that changed his view on the matter... Or, maybe, he is a hypocrite... *shrug*
I can agree to the extent that advising people against an action can occur as a result of a change in perspective. That makes sense. I just take issue with people who take it as far as getting the government involved.