[sinkspur]

You make no distinction between Kerrys' advocacy of unlimited direct abortion and Bushs' allowance for therapeutic abortions.

There is nothing "therapeutic" about aborting babies conceived through incest or to save the life of the mother. Bush favors both of those. The Church does not.

You should know that, Cunningham. Your "therapeutic" abortion reference has nothing to do with the argument at hand, bubba.

Anger management, A.A. Or A.A.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

Ridiculous. There is a world of difference between Bush's beliefs(exceptions) and Kerry's beliefs (partial birth abortion). Kerry is extrememly pro-abortion, while Bush is mostly pro-life.

And they disagree on most of the other five issues like stem cell research.

To vote for Kerry OVER Bush when considering abortion alone or along with the other five issues is downright evil.

[Diva]

There is nothing "therapeutic" about aborting babies conceived through incest or to save the life of the mother. Bush favors both of those.

Kerry also supports partial birth abortion, at least in his voting record in Washington. This is evil. Bush does not endorse partial birth abortion and has repeatedly said he will sign any bill Congress passes that will ban this procedure/murder. That makes Bush by far a better choice for pro-life voters. I thought this is what the instruction from the Vatican was all about. If you have two politicians who support abortion (and in Europe that is just about all you have), then you must vote for the candidate who supports life more than the other or others. That would seem to uphold the argument that voting for Kerry is cooperating with evil.