Deal Hudson Finds Kerry's Views on Abortion and Life "A Little Hard To Believe"

Catholic Citizens ^ | July 6, 2004 | Deal Hudson

[NYer]

I believe this is a dangerous effort to undermine a woman's right to choose, which is a constitutional amendment I will always fight to protect.

.... (so I can maintain those much needed votes from NARAL.)

Can you imagine his mother telling him: "John, I would have aborted you, but it was not legal back then. Please fight to ensure the right to choose is kept legal."

[Irelamb]

Here is an argument I like to use for those who like to fool themselves into thinking a fetus is not a human life. People like this generally will not respond to any type of religious or moral argument so I leave it at purely secular and logical level.
Indisputable premise. If all women alive as of this date, were to abort all pregnancies for the next 60 years, then the human race will be extinct by 2124.It does not matter if the abortion is conducted 1 sec after conception or 8 month 29 days.
Irrefutable logic. Since it is true for the entire population then it is true for each individual in that population, thus if all human life ends, each individual act ends human life.
While some might argue that this is an argument taken to an absurd conclusion, it does not change the truth of the premise and it belies the sophistry used by the SC to justify their inability to call a fetus human life or an individual deserving of protection by society.

[Casloy]

Try this one the next time a woman argues with you in favor of a woman's right to choose. "Do you think it is acceptable to abort a fetus simply because it is female." It's kind of tough to argue that we should legitimize the view women have less value than men men. It is actually happening now in India and China where boy babies are considered more valuable than girl babies. The long term cultural consequences of such "choices" are the thing of nightmares. Imagine a society where there are vastly more men than women. A total breakdown would be inevitable.

Most women would laugh and say that will never happen. Remind them that when abortions were first legalized no one dreamed we would someday legalize partially delivering a baby from it's mother and then suck out it's brains before we pulled the head out.

[AmericanMade1776]

You are welcome , if you need the source...it is here
http://www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm#Abortion

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Abortion is simply "a medical procedure"? If that were true, then on what grounds could he possibly be personally opposed to it? He certainly doesn't seem to be struggling with the issue here. And how exactly does he propose to "spread tolerance" to the "religious fringes"? Presumably, he's referring to the people who, as an article of faith, believe abortion to be immoral. But didn't he just claim to be one of those very people?

eastsider:"Care to comment on the sentence in bold?" 14 posted on 07/07/2004 9:22:19 AM PDT by eastsider

Well...where to begin? Kerry, on a moral level, is a barbarian. He's a member of weird secret societies. He supports "population control" with enthusiasm. Arrogantly he maintains the public fraud that he may do so and receive Holy Communion as a "Catholic" at Roman Catholic Masses. He MUST be stopped. And the bishops must stand up for innocent life. If they fail to do so, they will have blood on their hands and will have to answer for it in the afterlife.

I would urge all loyal faithful Catholics to speak out against this barbarian mass murderer LOUDLY and CLEARLY to fellow Catholics and Christians whenever the opportunity presents itself to do so.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Or did you mean the bit about "article of faith"? Well, we don't believe abortion to be immoral as "an article of faith." We KNOW and UNDERSTAND it to be immoral and evil based on evidence, reason, and natural law ethics. It's not a mere issue of "faith" or "belief" or requiring any leap into mysteries.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

I think the problem is with this fuzzy idea, of extremist totalitarian secular humanism, that expressions of a need to protect the lives of the unborn are part of some questionable esoteric theological mystery or sectarian absolutist Christian morality. An immediate question should follow for any logical, sane, literate adult: "Gee, does that mean any need to protect adult humans from murder is also a part of some mysterious theological morality which liberals are also exempt from?"

The legalization of abortion came about as a result largely of the secular revolution of the 1960s. Much of the rhetoric about "just a mass of cells" or "part of a woman's body" reflect a very unscientific and superstitious attitude toward what embryonic human life is. When people could NOT actually see what an unborn child looks like there was a lot of hocus pocus pushing for abortion. The original abortion attitudes of the 1970s and 1980s are now challenged by the fact that babies delivered pre-maturely SURVIVE MUCH EARLIER than before. In the UK this is causing legal review of abortion laws. As it should. The whole abortion industry is on very shaky ground just based on evidence - medical and scientific. The rot about "just a mass of cells" and "just part of a woman's body" should be over and thrown on the ash heap of history along with Auschwitz, the Gulag, and slavery.

[TigersEye]

Bump to your last two posts. Outstanding!

To boil it down a little more:

"If the concept of the sanctity of life is merely religious mysticism then murder is nothing more than a mystical concept. Therefore no life has any intrinsic value and punishments for taking or harming a life are absurd and neurotically irrational."