Posted on 07/05/2004 12:58:47 AM PDT by miltonim
DYERSVILLE, Iowa — As Sen. John Kerry campaigned across Iowa yesterday with Gov. Tom Vilsack, widely reported to be on Kerry's vice-presidential short list, both men dodged repeated questions about whether their joint appearance might be a preview of the Democratic ticket.
But even as he tried to avoid making news, Kerry broke ground in an interview that ran in the Dubuque, Iowa, daily, the Telegraph Herald. A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat recently from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper: "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception.
"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."
The comments came on the final day of a three-state Midwest swing, during which Kerry has repeatedly sought to dispel stereotypes that could play negatively among voters in the Midwest.
President Bush's campaign said these instances are further evidence of what it says is Kerry's propensity for misleading flip-flops.
"John Kerry's ridiculous claim to hold conservative values and his willingness to change his beliefs to fit his audience betrays a startling lack of conviction on important issues like abortion that will make it difficult for voters to give him their trust," said Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman.
But it always refers to skeptical analysis of observations. Its strongest assertions are always in terms of weight of evidence rather than certainty. I think today it is also safe to say that its claims are only considered meaningful if some unknown outcome of an observation could potentially prove it wrong.
These things all must be true for any proper use of "science" (if unqualified, that is. I don't think "Christian Science" meets these criteria).
Sounds like we probably agree. Sorry for the tangent.
Don't know about deranged, but laws frequently make unwilling Americans subject to propositional claims. Furthermore, it is perfectly constitutional for a US Senator to vote his conscience, whether or not it happens to correspond to Church tenets.
Quite a lot of the liberal jargon on abortion falls into this category. And, indeed, the roots of abortion ideology in eugenics and social engineering are well worth studying. Some of the pro-abortion ideology comes across essentially as a social hygiene type of argument, along the lines of the progressive era. "If we were to make abortion illegal, think of all the deaths and health problems from back-alley abortions..."
*There is nothing sacred or of significant transcendent value in a human fetus worth protecting." (ergo, abortion on demand)
This would particularly be the case if Kerry decides to fund abortion policies and population control agendas.
Since "sacred" and "value" are subjective terms, it means that the person making this statment does not value a human fetus (at least to the extent he's willing to protect it). It's more of a lack of a basis for having such a value.
At least that's the best literal deconstruction I can give. However, since it comes from a liberal I'm sure it's really just some kind of doubletalk for "give me your wallet."
What evidence, cognitive data, phenomena, or empirical observations lead to such a conclusion (that a human fetus has no value or sacred character)? Is there any basis in reality for such a conclusion? Indeed, for such a conclusion to be a guiding principle of government policy?
Being a negative claim, it doesn't call for a basis. Absence of value doesn't require justification. Values are applied only to things which we initially have no value for. Justifications are applied to things we initially have no justification for. By default we are unthinking creatures who do not value or justify things, even many of the things we are privy to. Burden of proof is placed upon the claimant. If you value something, and wish others to share your values, you need to persuade them.
That is utterly ridiculous and absurd. Just try changing the "human fetus" in the liberal proposition variable to black man, Jew, elderly person, or woman and think about that long and hard.
Kerry obviously believes that the innocent are legitimate targets for murder.
Thank you for putting it so simply.
I am convinced that the lie of these hell-bound "catholic" pols is worse than the evil committed by those actually stabbing the poor infants to death.
Just as there is no thought without a thinker, no running without a runner, no liking without a liker, there is no value without a valuer. The concept of a value without a valuer doesn't make any sense. Now, it is true that false things can be valued (e.g., 2+2=5, the moon is cheese), and things which dramatically conflict with my values can be valued (e.g., murder, assault). But one cannot escape the semantic fact that valuing is what a valuer does.
Also, values are much broader, and usually less interesting, than just questions of good and evil.
A boot stomping on a human baby's face is self-evidently evil.
It's evident to me, as it dramatically conflicts with some of my most basic and strongly held values (not to mention a few ascetic ones). You can therefore consider it self-evident to me, if you like.
The structural features (in reality) underlying axiological propositions are not determined purely by imaginative processes or private choice. Human consciousness, yes, and intuitions are always part of that reality. The transcendentals inhere in a wider ontological dynamic than private decisions about "values."
Since you guys are plunging into the deep - here is a question I've been thinking about while riding on my John Deere and moving the lawn:
Can an atheist believe in (or define) good or/and evil?
Without a reference for good, without an eternal prognosis for an eternal soul, where does the objective reference for evil come from?
Not stated well, but maybe you'll get the question.
A_R
"As my motorcycle zoomed across the plains, my fluttering ego consciousness soared back to my youthful days among the spires and towers of New Haven when I contemplated the Lotus of my navel with a quizzical eye towards the White House, just as Swami had instructed me, always consciously aware of the duties to keep my faith separated from the realm of external reality. As I told Morgan Fairchild while we were making love..."
That is utterly ridiculous and absurd. Just try changing the "human fetus" in the liberal proposition variable to black man, Jew, elderly person, or woman and think about that long and hard.
Ridiculous maybe, but only because it is hard to believe that a person has never considered the arguments for valuing a fetus (or "black man, Jew", etc). It is definitely not absurd, however. It is absurd to require people to explain their lack of position on an issue. If you value a fetus (or "black man, Jew", etc.), then I would think you wouldn't have any difficulty explaining why, so you shouldn't consider your burden to heavy to bear. However, the burden is still on you, the positive claimant.
Perhaps you just chose the wrong quote. Why not choose a quote with a positive stance, like "women should have the right to abortion" or "arguments justifying the value of fetuses are irrational" or "human life begins after parturition"?
But one cannot require justification of the statement, "I don't value X", because such a statement is in itself a lack of justification.
This is a variation of a point of view advanced by the satirical sophistical character Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic who offers a "might is right" thesis. The "good" is in the triumph of the strong over the weak. Abortion is a little like that. Especially that motivated by eugenic ideas.
Kerry's status as an American citizen does not absolve him of this duty as a Catholic.
You say that about most Democrats. It's a all about power and liberals love to burrow into government to wield it. And get elected to wield it. Most bureaucrats are liberal and Democrat.
BTW: John Kerry is a creature of government. He has very rarely worked in the dreaded private sector. He had a private law practice for 18 months and he couldn't wait to get back into government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.