Love Child Story Calls Into Question Whether Teddy Is Really Personally Opposed To Abortion
When I posted the story of Teddy Kennedy's alleged love child yesterday, I somehow missed this:
Ted Kennedy Wanted His Illegitimate Child Aborted
Senator Ted Kennedy has an illegitimate child, it was claimed yesterday. The Massachusetts senator, now 73, begged lover Caroline Bilodeau to have an abortion, then paid her around $15,000 to keep quiet when she refused. One-time playboy Mr Kennedy - involved in a fatal car crash at Chappaquiddick in the 60s - had just split from wife Joan and feared news of the baby boy would finally sink his career. A friend of Caroline's revealed: "He told her he couldn't undergo another scandal, not after Chappaquiddick, not so close to his divorce. He was angry when she defied him." Full story...
posted by Pro Ecclesia 11:56 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
You mean he's not really personally opposed? I am shocked! Shocked!
No, but seriously, of course they're lying when they say they're "personally opposed, but..."
Cuomo, the originator of "personally opposed, but..." was also personally opposed to the death penalty, which he repeatedly vetoed.
When it's sincere, liberals will cheerfully act on their "personal opposition" without regard to law or other principle.
Actions, not words. We know this.
Of course they're lying. They believe in abortion both politically and personally. They have to say otherwise, however, to maintain the facade of being in good standing with the Church. We know, however, as the last 2 Popes have stated, that this isn't the case.
That The Swimmer, when faced with a real-life scenario, wanted to "choose" the abortion route, gives lie to his claim of being "personally opposed, but ..."
I guess I should say that The Swimmer "allegedly" chose the abortion route.
I guess I should say that The Swimmer "allegedly" chose the abortion route.
Especially since the allegations ultimately come from the National Enquirer — not exactly the height of journalistic integrity.
No, but once the story makes it onto the pages of the Boston Herald, it does take on slightly more credibility.
No, but once the story makes it onto the pages of the Boston Herald, it does take on slightly more credibility.
Garbage in, garbage out. If the original source is very unreliable, it doesn't become reliable simply because a newspaper that is otherwise reliable decides to quote it at length without independently verifying the information. The whole story was about the Enquirer reporting the allegations, not about the allegations themselves, which indicates they've neither spent too much (if any) independently establishing the facts nor that they are tying their own credibility to the facts reported by the Enquirer (or doing so as little as humanly possible). If the whole thing is proven to be bogus, they can just say, "We never said it was true. We said the National Enquirer said it was true, which they did, in fact, say."
which indicates they've neither spent too much (if any) independently establishing the facts
I meant too much time or effort, not too much money as the omitted word(s) implies.
Post a Comment
<< Home