Audio: It’s time for Democrats to moderate on abortion, says … Jimmy Carter?

posted at 6:00 pm on March 29, 2012 by Allahpundit

Skip to 13:20 of the clip for the key bit. Dude, second look at–

No. I can’t bring myself to say it.

“I never have believed that Jesus Christ would approve of abortions and that was one of the problems I had when I was president, having to uphold Roe v. Wade. And I did everything I could to minimize the need for abortions. I made it easy to adopt children, for instance, that were unwanted and also initiated the program called Women and Infant Children, or WIC program, that’s still in existence now. But except for the times when a mother’s life is in danger or when a pregnancy is caused by rape or incest I would certainly not or never have approved of any abortions…

“I’ve signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion which is to minimize the need, requirement for abortion and limit it only to women whose life are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest. I think if the Democratic Party would adopt that policy that would be acceptable to a lot of people who are now estranged from our party because of the abortion issue.”

Listen as Ingraham engages with him on how much bluer the south might be if blue-collar evangelicals didn’t have a moral objection to voting Democratic. Impossible to know offhand, though, whether they’d net more electoral votes that way than they’d lose. What’s the point in losing Mississippi by 10 points instead of 20 if, say, Colorado liberals stay home in outrage and you lose that state altogether? (On the other hand, if moving right on abortion helped them win Virginia outright while shrinking their margin of victory in California to “only” six or seven points, that might be worth doing.) And if they crossed the aisle, how confident would blue-collar evangelicals feel that the Democrats’ pro-choice wing wouldn’t end up controlling the party’s agenda anyway once it’s in office? I’d love to see a poll on the subject.

Even if you had hard evidence that moderation on “choice” would net them some votes, I wonder if the party would do it. Abortion is one of the modern left’s animating concerns, which is why I had fun with O’s conspicuous silence about it last night in his Planned Parenthood pander. Protecting it shouldn’t matter as much morally to them as ending it matters to pro-lifers since only one side considers it a matter of life and death, but it seems to. If the party betrayed them over it, even for electoral advantage, the backlash would be roughly as ferocious as it would be on the right if the GOP suddenly lurched towards the pro-choice position in hopes of winning a few swing states. (If you don’t like that example, imagine conservative reaction to the RNC embracing gun control because it might help in California.) If they did it, they’d be betting that the 15 percent of rabid abortion-supporting liberals who end up defecting to the Green Party could be replaced with a chunk of evangelicals such that the Dems end up topping the GOP narrowly in three-way elections (a la 1992 and 1996) each cycle. Again, I’d have to see a poll to know if that’s feasible — and it’s certainly true that some disaffected leftists would grudgingly vote Dem anyway if the race looked very close — but replacing people who’ll definitely vote for you with people who might vote for you seems awfully risky when the stakes are this high.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Good Lt.-

Read Psalms 139 it specifically talks about life before birth in the mother’s womb. Also all through the book of Deut, Numbers, Leviticus, Chronicles , Kings, 1 & 2 Samuel- God speaks specifically about parents who “cause their children to pass through the fire” which is a reference to child sacrifice. It is very clear how God feels about parents who for their own percieved gain, kill their children.

mcplumbercuda on March 29, 2012 at 7:36 PM

The Democratic Party’s stance on abortion and gay marriage is the only decent aspect of the Party, as ours is our shame.

The use of abortifacients was common in Greek medicine and certainly would have been common in Israel since the time of Alexander the Great (and perhaps long before). If Jesus had some big objection to a common practice, he could have said something about it. This leads me to suspect that he didn’t.

thuja on March 29, 2012 at 7:32 PM

it was also punishable by death if caught by the “priests” of various religions. but go right ahead Thuja , you and those like you keep on murdering those helpless unborn children. and i dont know if you have any faith or not but even if you dont ask yourself this… did you just abort the child who would have cured cancer? or maybe it was the child who would one day go on to bring about the start of world peace…. i guess we will never know…. but of course the best question of all is …. do i like knowing that i am pushing for something to be legal which could have meant i myself wouldnt have been born? … you are all pro choice now but i bet if you could ask yourself that in the womb you would not be

katee bayer on March 29, 2012 at 7:39 PM

God speaks specifically about parents who “cause their children to pass through the fire” which is a reference to child sacrifice.

Well, how about Jesus, then?

Talk about child sacrifice…

Good Lt on March 29, 2012 at 7:40 PM

He must have finally recognized his mortality and is seeking forgiveness for the millions of babies killed with his sin of omission.

dunce on March 29, 2012 at 6:12 PM

I agree. My first thought is that Jimmah has realized just how close to judgement day he is.

kakypat on March 29, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Good Lt- Um Jesus says repeatedly in the Gospels that he LAID DOWN HIS LIFE… no one took it but he laid it down. That isn’t child sacrfiice.

mcplumbercuda on March 29, 2012 at 7:43 PM

I agree. My first thought is that Jimmah has realized just how close to judgement day he is.

kakypat on March 29, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Whose judgement day?

Vishnu’s?

Good Lt on March 29, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Good Lt- Um Jesus says repeatedly in the Gospels that he LAID DOWN HIS LIFE… no one took it but he laid it down. That isn’t child sacrfiice.

mcplumbercuda on March 29, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Um, he had no choice.

If he refused to do the will of the Father…

Good Lt on March 29, 2012 at 7:45 PM

then that is murder and is a cardinal sin which is an unforgiveable sin .

WRONG!

Jesus saves all who come to him with an open heart and who accept him.

Who are you to know his mind or justice?

Good Lt on March 29, 2012 at 7:36 PM

excuse me i misspoke i should have stated mortal sin not cardinal sin …

Thursday September 8, 2005 Previous | Next
Dear Yahoo!:
What’s the difference between a mortal sin, a cardinal sin, and a deadly sin?
Colin
Dear Colin:
Anyone who wants to be able to say, “But I didn’t know!” when their time runs out is advised to look the other way. Still there? Perhaps the easiest way to tackle this touchy topic is to take the different categories one at a time. In the spirit of getting the truly terrible out of the way first, let’s begin with the deadly sins.
Deadly sins are synonymous with cardinal sins and correspond with “certain aspects of human nature.” They include the big seven — pride, gluttony, lust, avarice, sloth, wrath, and envy (aka the horrible things Kevin Spacey’s character did to his victims in the movie Seven). The seven deadly sins never appear as a list in the Bible, though some believe they can be found in the Gospel of Matthew. These sins are opposed by the seven virtues — charity, meekness, zeal, generosity, moderation, chastity, and humility.

Mortal sins are a bit more vague. They are voluntary acts “said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law, or a thought, word, or deed contrary to the eternal law.” The key word there is “voluntary” because as this site puts it, mortal sins cannot be committed “accidentally.” That’s good news, but according to Wikipedia, mortal sins cannot be forgiven after the sinner dies. Depending on your particular system of beliefs, that may be cause to sign up for some volunteer work sooner rather than later..

and before you ask where in the bible it is let me tell you this IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE.

Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

katee bayer on March 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

He absolutely had a choice. In Corinthians it says that For the Joy that was set before him he endured death, even the death of the cross. At any time Jesus could have called a Legion of Angels to take him from the Cross. Jesus’ prayer in the Garden made it clear that he was specifically choosing to do His Father’s will. If he refused to do his Father’s will we wouldn’t be having this debate because humanity would be lost, but Jesus would still be Lord. He was 33 1/2 years old when he went to the Cross so he wasnt a child either way.

mcplumbercuda on March 29, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Katee – time to go with the Proverbs:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Kelligan on March 29, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Carter is crazy… ignore him.

Karmashock on March 29, 2012 at 7:53 PM

If Jesus had some big objection to a common practice, he could have said something about it. This leads me to suspect that he didn’t.

thuja on March 29, 2012 at 7:32 PM

If you are serious, you should go and read the gospels. You will see that Jesus stayed out of politics. He had another mission. For Christians Jesus is our Saviour, not a political pawn.

Apples and oranges

jazzuscounty on March 29, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Kelligan on March 29, 2012 at 7:50 PM

yeah im pretty much done with this conversation anyway. im actually falling asleep here and getting lazy hence the yahoo reference material lol.

katee bayer on March 29, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Katee – time to go with the Proverbs:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Kelligan on March 29, 2012 at 7:50 PM

You make a very good point. Guess I was just trying to honestly answer that God’s Word does speak about abortion, even though the word “abortion” isn’t mentioned.

mcplumbercuda on March 29, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Jesus’ prayer in the Garden made it clear that he was specifically choosing to do His Father’s will.

His Father’s will was that Jesus be killed and others atoned by a primitive blood sacrifice?

Thanks for making my point about child sacrifice.

Good Lt on March 29, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Katee – time to go with the Proverbs:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Kelligan on March 29, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Problem: I’m not a fool. I’m asking you pointed questions that you’re struggling to answer.

Good Lt on March 29, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Good Lt.- I’m not going to debate the basic tenants of my faith with you. You originally asked for proof that God doesn’t like Abortion, and I provided scripture to that end. Have a great evening.

mcplumbercuda on March 29, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Good Lt.- I’m not going to debate the basic tenants of my faith with you. You originally asked for proof that God doesn’t like Abortion, and I provided scripture to that end. Have a great evening.

mcplumbercuda on March 29, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Fine. If you think you’ve done what you need to do, good day.

Good Lt on March 29, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Good boy on this one, Jimmay.

But you’re still a despicable asshole and the second worst president of all time.

justltl on March 29, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Um, he had no choice.

If he refused to do the will of the Father…

Good Lt on March 29, 2012 at 7:45 PM

No.

Jesus did have a choice. From Jesus’ trials with the devil in the desert to his death on the cross, the salvation of mankind was in doubt. God sent his onlybegotten son to save mankind, but salvation is predicated on the conscious decision of Jesus to choose his fate.

We can speculate what would have happened if he didn’t; I don’t know. We simply know he did.

As Jesus, we all make a conscious decision on whether or not to choose salvation. Other faiths may believe otherwise, but one of the tenets of Christian faith is our choice to ask for salvation.

itsspideyman on March 29, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Can’t believe this guy! How long has abortion been the official sacrament of the Democrat party??? And how long has Csrter been a Democrat?? Don’t think Carter will escape the Judgment with this flimsy walkback. When you really repent, Jimmy, leave the party!

Christian Conservative on March 29, 2012 at 8:17 PM

aw Jimmy u make the mistake of thinking conservatives really care about life when all they want to do is play sex police

DBear on March 29, 2012 at 8:23 PM

aw Jimmy u make the mistake of thinking conservatives really care about life when all they want to do is play sex police

DBear on March 29, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Do you suffer from third stage syphilis?

tom daschle concerned on March 29, 2012 at 8:27 PM

One last attempt to save his legacy before he leaves planet earth.

jan3 on March 29, 2012 at 8:40 PM

No.

Yes.

Jesus did have a choice

No he di9dn’t.

Because scripture had to be fulfilled, according to Christin beliefs.

All that came to pass HAD TO come to pass. It had to be. Tt was ordained.

Therefore, the OT god wanted and mandated his only\ son be killed and sacrificed.

“Morality.”

This is what happens when you live by ‘revealed truth.’

From Jesus’ trials with the devil in the desert to his death on the cross, the salvation of mankind was in doubt

No, it wasn’t. It had to be. It was God’s will.

God sent his onlybegotten son to save mankind, but salvation is predicated on the conscious decision of Jesus to choose his fate.

That fate being…a human sacrifice.

“Morality.”

We can speculate what would have happened if he didn’t; I don’t know. We simply know he did.

Says the Bible, which was written by people and not a divine being.

So we know what some books of the Bible say (or what some translation says). Let’s be accurate about it.

As Jesus, we all make a conscious decision on whether or not to choose salvation.

Choose, or else.

An offer you can’t refuse.

Sounds like something the mafia would offer you. Not a savior of humanity.

Other faiths may believe otherwise, but one of the tenets of Christian faith is our choice to ask for salvation.

itsspideyman on March 29, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Well, all the other faiths are going to burn in hell anyway, so…

Good Lt on March 29, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Whoa, typos.

Good Lt on March 29, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Really.

This guy truly has an elliptical orbit around reality.

Wolfmoon on March 29, 2012 at 9:32 PM

aw Jimmy u make the mistake of thinking conservatives really care about life when all they want to do is play sex police

DBear on March 29, 2012 at 8:23 PM

But the democrat party wants to play food police, money police, energy police,speech police, etc.

you see…

William Eaton on March 29, 2012 at 9:37 PM

If you are serious, you should go and read the gospels. You will see that Jesus stayed out of politics. He had another mission. For Christians Jesus is our Saviour, not a political pawn.

Apples and oranges

jazzuscounty on March 29, 2012 at 7:53 PM

What you have to say seems more problematic to the religious right than to me. So, I’ll just agree with you.

thuja on March 29, 2012 at 10:07 PM

His Father’s will was that Jesus be killed and others atoned by a primitive blood sacrifice?

Thanks for making my point about child sacrifice.

Good Lt on March 29, 2012 at 7:54 PM

I had never thought of the crucifixion as the abortion of God before. I am not going to be the one to come up offensive jokes based on this theme, but I’m sure that they are there.

thuja on March 29, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Ethel Waters was the product of rape. Should she have been killed?

Ward Cleaver on March 29, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Well, all the other faiths are going to burn in hell anyway, so…

Good Lt on March 29, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Why do you feel that way?

itsspideyman on March 29, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Good Lt on March 29, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Good luck Lt. You have issues you can’t solve.

itsspideyman on March 29, 2012 at 10:17 PM

What does he mean “Jesus Christ would approve of abortions?” Doesn’t he believe in a living God?

flataffect on March 29, 2012 at 10:31 PM

What you have to say seems more problematic to the religious right than to me. So, I’ll just agree with you.

thuja on March 29, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Then we do agree since some on the right have hijacked the gospel just like some on the left are wont to do.

jazzuscounty on March 29, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Carter’s pro-life eh? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

What does he mean “Jesus Christ would approve of abortions?” Doesn’t he believe in a living God?

flataffect on March 29, 2012 at 10:31 PM

It’s not incorrect to say “I don’t think President Obama would approve of his health care garbage being crushed in the Supreme Court”, yet I’m quite aware that he’s still living.

Quantus on March 29, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Wow.

Jimmeh might actually have a soul, after all…

Never thought I’d hear anything come out of his nut-filled noggin that I’d agree with, but I finally have. Good on ya, Jimmeh!!

Shepherd Lover on March 29, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Audio: It’s time for Democrats to moderate on abortion, says … Jimmy Carter?

Despite his age, he is still capable of moments of clarity. May this one be sincere, not brief.

Protecting it shouldn’t matter as much morally to them as ending it matters to pro-lifers since only one side considers it a matter of life and death, but it seems to.

Protecting it allows the extermination of whom they view as undesirable to continue. Abortion is moral to them.

So long as abortion can’t be done to them.

rukiddingme on March 29, 2012 at 11:46 PM

Jimmuh, we never needed you before, and we most definitely do not need you now.

minnesoter on March 30, 2012 at 12:29 AM

My son is in the service, deployed in the ME. If he has to kill an enemy combatant to save a fellow soldier, he is a murder and condemned by your god? Seriously?

ladyingray on March 29, 2012 at 7:06 PM

No. The proper translation is “You shall not murder.” And God doesn’t condemn anyone. His desire is that All come to repentance and salvation. The offer is available to every person. The man who stands condemned condemned himself.

PalinLover on March 30, 2012 at 7:00 AM

His Father’s will was that Jesus be killed and others atoned by a primitive blood sacrifice?

Thanks for making my point about child sacrifice.

Good Lt on March 29, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Stupid analogy. Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh. There was no child sacrifice. God sacrificed Himself on your behalf. Now quit being hard headed.

PalinLover on March 30, 2012 at 7:04 AM

Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh.

Who sacrificed himself to…himself.

There was no child sacrifice.

Except for God’s son sacrificing himself to himself because God willed it.

God sacrificed Himself on your behalf.

Sacrificed himself to himself?

WTF

Now quit being hard headed.

Only if you promise to start being more rational.

Good Lt on March 30, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Why do you feel that way?

itsspideyman on March 29, 2012 at 10:16 PM

That’s Christianity.

Unless you are saying that Christianity means that you can worship Allah and gt to heaven now.

Which is, you know, not true according to the NT.

Good Lt on March 30, 2012 at 8:41 AM

I think if the Democratic Party would adopt that policy that would be acceptable to a lot of people who are now estranged from our party because of the abortion issue.”

Except the democrats raise a lot of money from the abortion industry. They donate to democrats campaigns, it’s an ugly symbiotic relationship, but there you go, they aren’t going to cut off a revenue stream.

Dr Evil on March 30, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Carter needs to buy a rocking chair and get a glass of sweet tea. His time in the spotlight is long gone and the Dems aren’t going to listen to his half baked idea. This is the most disgusting display of flipping on a former position evah! from a man desperately trying to salvage his presidential reputation. Not gonna happen, Jimmah. The dems are too invested in using women’s health as an issue to change now.

Kissmygrits on March 30, 2012 at 9:45 AM

The Democrats have built their styrofoam empire on a mountain of murdered children.

They’re not about to turn back now.

NoDonkey on March 30, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Somehow I doubt they’re going to listen to him. They ain’t his Democrats… they’re a lot more leftward and rabid now. Issue one word running counter to Party thinking and it’s off to the re-education centers for you, Comrade.

Ryan Anthony on March 30, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Now that the buzzards are circling jimma has refound God.

chicken thief on March 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM

This one bothers me.

I don’t remember ever agreeing with Carter about anything before.

EconomicNeocon on March 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Stinkin’ Jimmy Carter, the Jew hater.

jqc1970 on March 30, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Though I’ve never met her, always liked Laura. Now, I suspect I’d have been a little suspicious had I known her back when she was dating Bob Torricelli. But I’ll take the Christian view on that one and forgive her on the general grounds of “youthful indiscretion.

That said, however, when I heard the opening line or hers on this clip, saying that she KNOWS “he has a great sense of humor . . . that finished me.

Jimmy Carter well may be known for a slew of character traits. But he has never been known for (or even been accused by his detractors of having) a sense of humor, at least not publicly.

The bit about the rabbit and the attack on the canoe was not a joke — they were serious!

How is it possible, then, that he could have had a great sense of humor, and yet have hidden it so completely behind his consistent public façade . . . i.e., of being an annoying, sometimes exacting, and thoroughly pompous prig all these years?

Trochilus on March 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Dr Evil on March 30, 2012 at 8:51 AM

I agree. They will not take Jimmy Carter very seriously anyway — but especially on this issue. Despite the fact that the public view of this issue has shifted over time, coming out and taking a markedly modified position on abortion would hurt most Democrat candidates.

And that is precisely because it is one of their big revenue streams.

At a time when there is also a very volatile electorate beginning to closely examine the top of their ticket in the fall race and on a whole host of issues, the last thing the Democrats will want to do is to be perceived as softening their approach to a specific issue, while trying to maintain a hard-nosed constituency on the issue, one that they absolutely cannot afford to alienate.

They would not have cooked up and played out the whole Sandra Fluck controversy if they had had any thoughts of softening their traditional hard line approach on reproductive rights.

Hillary Clinton actually tried to promote a more modest and modified version of this during the 2008 primary, and she was the ultimate loser.

Was there a connection? Hard to tell. But her softening position on abortion certainly did not win her any Democrat converts.

That’s for sure!

Trochilus on March 30, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2