Posted on 10/10/2004 9:03:39 AM PDT by cpurick
I don't have a well-founded position on abortion, because I honestly don't know when life begins.
But Kerry's answer on abortion, in the second presidential debate, was ridiculous:
"...I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic...Religion has been a huge part of my life...But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith..."
One of the most revealing aspects of the abortion issue is that the two camps are seldom thought of as "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion." In fact, neither side's case is a statement on the matter of abortion; both sides describe their respective position in terms of an underlying philosophical priority.
The "pro-choice" crowd maintains that abortion is an idividual decision, while the "pro-life" crowd sees it as murder.
The two camps are not as far apart as the heat of the struggle suggests. In fact, both positions are completely consistent and thoroughly American, and differ only on the answer to one monumental question: When does life begin? And this, of course, has always been at the heart of the debate.
You don't have to have a solid answer to the question to take a side. For example, one could argue -- absent conclusive evidence that life has begun -- that abortion should be the mother's choice. Or, you could reasonably argue that the benefit of the doubt belongs to the unborn.
Those are the well-reasoned positions of individuals who are not certain when life begins.
The one position -- on the matter of when life begins -- that is completely inconsistent with the pro-choice stance, is the view that life begins at conception. That is the Catholic position. Supposedly, that is John Kerry's position.
But that is also the entire basis of the pro-life position. The pro-life camp does not oppose choice; they simply can't rationalize that anyone has the power of choice when it comes to the life of another. Again, this is something we all agree with, it's just that pro-life supporters have a very strong conviction about when that life comes into being.
For John Kerry to accept the Catholic article of faith -- that life begins at conception -- and then to define pro-life policy as if it were "an imposition on people of differing faiths" is absurd. If Kerry had any conviction, at all, about life beginning at conception, he'd know that differences of faith are simply irrelevant: the government's role is to protect life. Even from people who might not recognize that life where it exists.
Kerry's position is like saying, "I believe abortion is murder, but I have no right to save the lives of those who are being murdered by others who don't view it as murder." Simply absurd.
On the campaign, it's difficult to tell if Kerry really has any convictions about anything, though it's interesting to note that George Bush has no qualms about discussing his position on abortion -- even at the risk of losing many votes.
Kerry's Senate record on abortion is not consistent with the personal views he claims to hold, and it's even more disconcerting to think he claims that position out of mere political convenience.
More and more, it seems to me that John Kerry's only core value is that he believes he should be President. When's the last time anyone saw him take an actual stand on anything he could account for?
You won't be corrected.
[B] The "pro-choice" crowd maintains that abortion is an idividual decision, while the "pro-life" crowd sees it as murder. [/B]
But isn't murder an individual decision? I see the difference being that both sides admit it is murder, but one side sees an obligation to prevent it and the other side believes that it's up to each person to decide [I] and whatever they decided is okay. [/I]
I am firmly against abortion and would neither have one nor counsel anyone else to have one, and I also do not counsel people to beat their children to death, shoot their ex-wives, behead their girl friend's dog, or set frie to the home of an abortion doctor. Neither do I thinkn that the fact that someone decides to do these things means I am bound to support their decision. I am not.
The difference between me and Kerry is that I have thought about my position and I can defend it. He has not and he can't.
Yes, John Kerry "believes life begins at conception" and is a "Catholic" yet many priests in his own Catholic Church think he should not receive Holy Communion because his voting record DOES NOT REFLECT THE CHURCH BELIEFS!
Kerry was against abortion before he voted for abortion. It is just another example showing that there isn't a side of an issue he isn't for. It's hard to believe that the state of Massachusetts would keep someone like him in office for 20 years (I forgot they've also left Ted Kennedy in office, even after his questionable actions in the death of Mary Jo Kopeckne). Is there any better examples for term limits than these two.
There's life in a fertilized chicken egg.
The question is when does the soul enter the body? There are many valid belif systems that think the soul enters the body varying amounts of time after conception.
Kerry uses his religion for what he feels benefits him. Thats all, no more no less. That is the sign of a person who has no morals. If we had rejected this communist hippy generation revolution in the 60s, we would not be talking of legislation of morality in the halls of congress now.
You cannot legislate morality...it starts at home through the teaching of respect by parents to their children. And you know fully well what the democratic party has done to the family over the years.
Like require people who disagree to pay for it?
What Kerry is saying is that "I think abortion is murder but I don't have the strength of character to vote with my convictions."
Bush should have nailed him on this and then asked the audience if Kerry can't make a tough decision to vote against what he believes is murder how can you trust him to make the difficult choices a comnmander in chief during war time has to make?
who knows when life begins? NEWSFLASH: we can keep pregnancy from happening!!! as a mature woman i know that there many, many ways to keep from getting pregnant and all it takes is a little advance planning or self control. since sex should be for grown ups, this shouldn't be too big an assignment. i for one am sick of hearing about abortion year in and year out. this discussion started 30 years ago when forms of birth control were virtually nonexistent or hard to procure. that is no longer the case. of course in terms of rape, incest, i think it is understandable to have abortion available. otherwise, ladies and gents, take responsibility for your sex life. as for late term abortion, we consider ourselves a civilized society and this is a barbaric procedure. as a society some of us apparently have more sympathy for pets than we do for a late-term baby.
The "pro-choice" crowd maintains that abortion is an idividual decision, while the "pro-life" crowd sees it as murder.
I would rewrite this sentence to read:
The "pro-choice" crowd maintains that abortion (the killing of a fetus) is everyone's legal right -- according to their conscience -- without any legal repercusions.
While the "pro-life" crowds sees abortion (the killing of a fetus) as murder and therefore punishable by law.
If I knew nothing else about Kerry, this statement alone would be enough to never vote for him. This insanity that you can believe something is a human being but you don't have the guts to stand up and defend it is not only immoral, it is evil. What an absolute dirtbag. He's going straight to hell.
His argument was ridiculous on another level, when he said that he voted against the PBA ban because it doesn't include an exception for the life or health of the mother. For that not to jump out at someone requires them to have no idea what Partial Birth Abortion is. The PBA procedure is only done on late-term babies who are generally (if not always) of sufficient development for life outside the womb. First, labor is induced. PBA then requires a woman to go through all of the hazards of giving birth, and then, at the last moment, physically keeping the babies head inside and rotating the body out so as to kill the baby. From the health vantagepoint of the mother, she has given birth.
The purpose of Partial Birth Abortion is not medical in any way, but rather was designed to evade legal definitions of birth - keeping the head of the baby inside the mothers body until the baby can be killed, so as not to be legally considered infanticide.
There is a reason why even most pro-abortion groups condemn the practice.
Just posted an article that well demolishes this smoke and mirrors load of bovine execrement.
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.