Kerry believe's life begins at conception before he believed it should be aborted

[Usually Lurkin]

The cases you are talking about are a very small percentage of the total number of abortions. Let's be clear that your arguments aren't applicable to abortion in general.
As for the few cases for which it is applicable: We know less about the level of self-acceptance of a person who can't speak than we do about a person who can speak. If it's illegal to kill someone who can tell you "My life is not worth living" (and it is rightly illegal), then how can it be legal to kill someone who cannot tell you about their own life (and who furthermore, has not had a chance to live that life)?

By your argument, it should be legal for mothers to kill any of their children who may not be able to speak for themselves. After all, if a mother were to kill her 10 year old mute quadraplegic who eats through a tube, she would be doing him or her a favor, right? It's mother's decision, right? Besides, that quadraplegic would be a great drain on her resources, both physically and financially. The mother could very well die of stress related illnesses.

Should a mother with hypertension be allowed to kill any of her children who might be causing her undue stress?

And there are indeed possibly millions of babies born to mothers who do not love them. Those mothers surely cannot speak for their children. Should anyone who can say they love a child more than the child's mother be allowed to kill that child?

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
NO, this is no joke, nobody is laughing.

Actually Mavdog, most of us are laughing at your absolute barbaric idiocy right now.

you presume the child will be able to "determine what [their] life will be like". They may not ever be able if they have severe mental defects, and may not be physically able if their physical defects limit their life to a short period.
One can make such an argument.

Once again, where is the baby's choice? Is it fair that it's our choice if the baby's going to lead a happy life or not? NO. What if, although retarded or deformed, the baby would have wanted to live a full life? Should we take the opportunity away from them?

I have a dear friend with down's syndrome. People like you may say that it's better to kill him before he's born to spare him a life that you may not think is happy, but is that rightfully your choice to make? This friend of mine is one of the happiest, most cheerful people I've ever met. He loves his life and everybody around him. The thought of taking away a life like his due to mere presumption is absolutely unfair and cruel.

[Drbio]

Actually Mavdog, most of us are laughing at your absolute barbaric idiocy right now.

Right now.....last week...the month before...yada yada yada....


classic.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: mavsman55

Actually Mavdog, most of us are laughing at your absolute barbaric idiocy right now.

I don't pretend to speak for anybody else, why do you?

you presume the child will be able to "determine what [their] life will be like". They may not ever be able if they have severe mental defects, and may not be physically able if their physical defects limit their life to a short period.
One can make such an argument.

Once again, where is the baby's choice? Is it fair that it's our choice if the baby's going to lead a happy life or not? NO. What if, although retarded or deformed, the baby would have wanted to live a full life? Should we take the opportunity away from them?[/quote]

the "baby" doesn't have a "choice", just like it has been from day one of it's very formulation as a fertilized egg.
those eggs who were flushed out by fluids didn't have a choice either.
the eggs who were fertilized but didn't attach to the wall didn't have a choice either.
the ones who were attached but lost for a variety of reasons didn't have a choice either.
the ones who were stillborn didn't have a choice either.
those that were here for a brief time didn't have a choice either.
plain and simple, it isn't their choice.

I have a dear friend with down's syndrome. People like you may say that it's better to kill him before he's born to spare him a life that you may not think is happy, but is that rightfully your choice to make? This friend of mine is one of the happiest, most cheerful people I've ever met. He loves his life and everybody around him. The thought of taking away a life like his due to mere presumption is absolutely unfair and cruel.

I've voluntered at state schools, I've seen the simple joy. it is wonderful, it is bittersweet.

That has nothing to do with taking the decision away from the mother who gives birth.
that is the one who should have the choice.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

the "baby" doesn't have a "choice", just like it has been from day one of it's very formulation as a fertilized egg.
those eggs who were flushed out by fluids didn't have a choice either.
the eggs who were fertilized but didn't attach to the wall didn't have a choice either.
the ones who were attached but lost for a variety of reasons didn't have a choice either.
the ones who were stillborn didn't have a choice either.
those that were here for a brief time didn't have a choice either.
plain and simple, it isn't their choice.

a lot of people die of natural causes, Mavdog.
Doesn't mean we should be able to kill them.

[mavsman55]

Murder is not a natural cause.

[dude1394]

When One Is Enough
By AMY RICHARDS as told to AMY BARRETT

grew up in a working-class family in Pennsylvania not knowing my father. I have never missed not having him. I firmly believe that, but for much of my life I felt that what I probably would have gained was economic security and with that societal security. Growing up with a single mother, I was always buying into the myth that I was going to be seduced in the back of a pickup truck and become pregnant when I was 16. I had friends when I was in school who were helping to rear nieces and nephews, because their siblings, who were not much older, were having babies. I had friends from all over the class spectrum: I saw the nieces and nephews on the one hand and country-club memberships and station wagons on the other. I felt I was in the middle. I had this fear: What would it take for me to just slip?

Now I'm 34. My boyfriend, Peter, and I have been together three years. I'm old enough to presume that I wasn't going to have an easy time becoming pregnant. I was tired of being on the pill, because it made me moody. Before I went off it, Peter and I talked about what would happen if I became pregnant, and we both agreed that we would have the child.

I found out I was having triplets when I went to my obstetrician. The doctor had just finished telling me I was going to have a low-risk pregnancy. She turned on the sonogram machine. There was a long pause, then she said, ''Are you sure you didn't take fertility drugs?'' I said, ''I'm positive.'' Peter and I were very shocked when she said there were three. ''You know, this changes everything,'' she said. ''You'll have to see a specialist.''

My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk-up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to?

I looked at Peter and asked the doctor: ''Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?'' The obstetrician wasn't an expert in selective reduction, but she knew that with a shot of potassium chloride you could eliminate one or more.

Having felt physically fine up to this point, I got on the subway afterward, and all of a sudden, I felt ill. I didn't want to eat anything. What I was going through seemed like a very unnatural experience. On the subway, Peter asked, ''Shouldn't we consider having triplets?'' And I had this adverse reaction: ''This is why they say it's the woman's choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That's easy for you to say, but I'd have to give up my life.'' Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn't be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It's not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I'm going to have to move to Staten Island. I'll never leave my house because I'll have to care for these children. I'll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise. Even in my moments of thinking about having three, I don't think that deep down I was ever considering it.

The specialist called me back at 10 p.m. I had just finished watching a Boston Pops concert at Symphony Hall. As everybody burst into applause, I watched my cellphone vibrating, grabbed it and ran into the lobby. He told me that he does a detailed sonogram before doing a selective reduction to see if one fetus appears to be struggling. The procedure involves a shot of potassium chloride to the heart of the fetus. There are a lot more complications when a woman carries multiples. And so, from the doctor's perspective, it's a matter of trying to save the woman this trauma. After I talked to the specialist, I told Peter, ''That's what I'm going to do.'' He replied, ''What we're going to do.'' He respected what I was going through, but at a certain point, he felt that this was a decision we were making. I agreed.

When we saw the specialist, we found out that I was carrying identical twins and a stand alone. My doctors thought the stand alone was three days older. There was something psychologically comforting about that, since I wanted to have just one. Before the procedure, I was focused on relaxing. But Peter was staring at the sonogram screen thinking: Oh, my gosh, there are three heartbeats. I can't believe we're about to make two disappear. The doctor came in, and then Peter was asked to leave. I said, ''Can Peter stay?'' The doctor said no. I know Peter was offended by that.

Two days after the procedure, smells no longer set me off and I no longer wanted to eat nothing but sour-apple gum. I went on to have a pretty seamless pregnancy. But I had a recurring feeling that this was going to come back and haunt me. Was I going to have a stillbirth or miscarry late in my pregnancy?

I had a boy, and everything is fine. But thinking about becoming pregnant again is terrifying. Am I going to have quintuplets? I would do the same thing if I had triplets again, but if I had twins, I would probably have twins. Then again, I don't know.

link

Maybe just as well, I'm not sure the world would benefit from two more people raised by this person.

[dude1394]

Russ Pulliam
Kerry's separation of belief and public policy


July 18, 2004


Though it was overshadowed by his selection of his running mate, John Kerry sounded like a real pro-lifer recently.

"I believe life does begin at conception," he said in a newspaper interview in Iowa.

Perhaps he meant to convey sympathy for family values. "I oppose abortion, personally," he said. "I don't like abortion."

Yet then he went on to sever his faith from his responsibilities as a public servant, declaring that opposition to abortion would be an unconstitutional imposition. "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he said. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

The problem is where this approach could take him on other issues. The position favoring a woman's right to choose abortion is based on the assumption that a baby in the womb is a blob of protoplasm, and that its removal should be similar to other medical operations -- left to the privacy of the patient and doctor.

But if Kerry really believes the baby is a baby, how can he set aside his conviction just because it comes from his church? It makes no sense to bring church doctrines of communion and baptism to bear in the public arena. But the stand against abortion is hardly peculiar to the Roman Catholic Church or even the Christian faith. Opponents of abortion include people of many faiths, or of no faith.

Kerry's perspective raises a troubling question of what other views he might set aside when church doctrine conflicts with political expediency. Laws against murder have some origin in church doctrine and the Bible. So do laws against child abuse and slavery. The civil rights movement was based on church doctrine and Scripture. Preachers such as Martin Luther King Jr. did not separate their faith from pleas with respect to public policy.

An Indiana Democrat, former House Speaker John Gregg, suggests that Kerry's views on this issue are symptomatic of a greater challenge for his party. "I could not check my faith, my Christian beliefs, at the door when I walked into the Statehouse," Gregg said. "I cannot be one person privately and a different person publicly."

But that separation of faith and policy, according to Gregg, hurts the party with voters who are Democrats with a sense of economic justice but are troubled by the moral relativism implicit in Kerry's public/private dichotomy on abortion.

"The entire gamut of social issues has been almost an Achilles' heel to the Democrats," Gregg said. "That's what got us in trouble with the conservative Democrats, the blue-collar Democrats, the labor Democrats."

The presidential campaign is likely to be dominated by issues of the economy and Iraq. But Kerry's private beliefs about abortion are in startling contrast to his aggressive advocacy of abortion rights. He has voted against attempts to outlaw partial-birth abortion and for the use of tax money to pay for abortion. If elected, he would keep anti-abortion judges off the Supreme Court.

Republican critics say his pro-abortion remarks are just another example of flip-flopping. But even if he really believes what he says, it's troubling to see him put such a distance between what he believes about the humanity of babies and how he will act on their behalf in office.

cognitive dissonance? or just plain old political hypocrisy?

[PlanoJ]

Kerry's hypocricy extends far beyond the issue of abortion. He has thus far failed to pursue the outlawing of the use of condoms. As a Catholic, Kerry should follow the papal stance that condoms and other forms of birth control are a means of abortion. This killing of Children even before they are conceived is immoral and once again a form of murder. The death penalty is another form of sanctioned murder (much like legalized forms of abortion) which defies both the law and morality. Also, why should the country not only support but encourage the birth of bastard children by offering the mother tax breaks and health care. Mothers of children born out of wed lock are sinners and at least should not be supported by the state. Kerry has never had the nerve to stand up for his personal and religious beliefs, but instead he has formed a long history of trying to vote in whatever way would appease the greatest number of the voters. He is nothing but a placater and a tool of what he perceives as the majority opinion.

[dude1394]

Ah, now I understand.

[dude1394]

Kerry tries again...

KERRY ON ABORTION, CLEAR AS MUD

Kerry talked with Peter Jennings tonight about how he could support abortion under all circumstances, yet believe that life begins at conception:

JENNINGS: The senator has always supported a woman's right to have an abortion but also agrees with the central premise of the anti-abortion movement: that life begins at conception.

KERRY: My personal belief about what happens in the fertilization process as a human being is first formed and created, that's when life begins. Something begins to happen, a transformation, an evolution and within weeks you look and see the development of it, but that's not a person yet, and it's certainly not what somebody, in my judgment, ought to have the government of the United States intervening in.

JENNINGS: If you believe that life begins at conception, is even a first trimester not murder?

KERRY: No, because it's not a form of life that takes personhood in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past. Do I believe we should talk about alternatives to abortion? I think we should talk about adoption, we should talk about, I think it is responsible to talk about abstinence, but I also believe you should talk about proper education of people, sex education.

This. Is. Gobbledygook.

[dude1394]

So any of you kerry supporters kind of want to decipher this??

---------
DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

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, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.

KERRY: But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.

Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.

You'll help prevent AIDS.

KERRY: You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.

You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.

GIBSON: Mr. President, minute and a half.

BUSH: I'm trying to decipher that.

My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion.

This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America.

I signed the partial-birth -- the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban.

I think there ought to be parental notification laws. He's against them.

I signed a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

BUSH: In other words, if you're a mom and you're pregnant and you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two cases, not just one. My opponent was against that.

These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America. I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life.

I also think we ought to continue to have good adoption law as an alternative to abortion.

And we need to promote maternity group homes, which my administration has done.

Culture of life is really important for a country to have if it's going to be a hospitable society.

Thank you.

[Mavdog]

It's pretty simple.

Those who oppose the termination of a pregnancy do so based on their religious convictions that life begins at conception.

Not everybody shares that belief, many believe that a women should have the right to control their own body.

Kerry supports the right of the women to make her own choice.

Kerry does not see his role to legislate his beliefs on this issue upon those who believe different than he does.

[Drbio]

Kerry therefore violates his Catholic belief foundations.

[Mavdog]

Is it a "Catholic belief" that everybody must act like a Catholic?

That was what we refer to as The Inquisition. It was wrong then and it would be wrong today.

[Drbio]

Nice attempt at sensationalistic spin. Kerry clearly violates the teachings of Catholicism here. If he espouses his belief as a way to get votes (something he has repeatedly done) then he must answer for the discrepancy. He doesn't get to flip flop here. He cannot have it both ways.

I'm sure the Pope would agree.

[Mavdog]

Catholicism advocates the intermingling of church and state? not in America.

Kerry would only violate the teachings of his church by way of his personal conduct, not by refusing to legislate his church's theology.

I don't feel capable of speaking for the Pope.

[Drbio]

You sidestepped nicely. Kerry must address the discrepancy. He has not.

Kerry would only violate the teachings of his church by way of his personal conduct, not by refusing to legislate his church's theology.
Obviously you know little of catholicism.

[sike]

I think any "good" Catholic would say that his beliefs must penetrate every corner of his life. I am fairly certain that Kerry would be considered a pretty liberal Catholic...even moderate Catholics would say this.

[Mavdog]

So in your mind catholicism mandates that Kerry and every other Catholic politician must legislate according to Catholic beliefs? In that case divorce would never be allowed...and contraception would be outlawed.

Nope, that is why we have the seperation of church and state.

[reeds]

I thought this was covered back in July?? Kerry made his point clear during debate #2..whats not to get??

He personally doesnt beleive in abortion himself, but also does not feel he should tell a woman she cannot have an abortion (in a nutshell)..

"catholicism. " hmmm...perhaps strict catholics may not agree- cant please everyone..Kerry is not GOD..at least he admits that...

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: sike
I think any "good" Catholic would say that his beliefs must penetrate every corner of his life. I am fairly certain that Kerry would be considered a pretty liberal Catholic...even moderate Catholics would say this.

uh oh, the "L" word. Is there such a thing as a "neo-con" Catholic? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

[Drbio]

Mavdog attempts to spin again....but we won't let him. Sike nailed it. Kerry has stated discrepancies between his religious beliefs (which he is usuing to garner votes) and his actions (which clearly are not consistent with catholic theology).

[kg_veteran]

We HAVE had this discussion before. What Kerry's answer on Friday in response to the abortion question confirms is that Kerry is a moral coward.

The argument that you "can't legislate morality" is, frankly, ridiculous.

When we pass laws prohibiting the use of marijuana and cocaine, we are legislating morality.

When we pass laws prohibiting prostitution and marrying multiple people at the same time, we are legislating morality.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Court says gay marriage is permissible, it is legislating morality. When states pass laws prohibiting gay marriage, they are doing the same.

When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, it legislated its morality on the rest of us.

John Kerry, don't tell us you CAN'T legislate your morality on others. The truth is, you either don't really believe what you say you do, or you don't have the courage to stand up for your beliefs. It's one, or the other.

[sike]

I'd vote for kg...thats for sure.

great post!

[Mavdog]

There are certainly many so called "moral" laws that are on the books. They do for the most part transcend any specific religion however.

A legislator must have moral basis to their decisions, that I will agree. There needs to be a compass to decide what is right or wrong.

[sike]

They do for the most part transcend any specific religion however.

most world religions that I am aware of have negative reflections on abortion. What makes you think that only Christianity is the only religion has problems with it Mavdog?

[Murphy3]

Originally posted by: sike

most world religions that I am aware of have negative reflections on abortion. What makes you think that only Christianity is the only religion has problems with it Mavdog?

Sike, it's not like you know anything about religion...do you?

[Murphy3]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
We HAVE had this discussion before. What Kerry's answer on Friday in response to the abortion question confirms is that Kerry is a moral coward.

The argument that you "can't legislate morality" is, frankly, ridiculous.

When we pass laws prohibiting the use of marijuana and cocaine, we are legislating morality.

When we pass laws prohibiting prostitution and marrying multiple people at the same time, we are legislating morality.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Court says gay marriage is permissible, it is legislating morality. When states pass laws prohibiting gay marriage, they are doing the same.

When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, it legislated its morality on the rest of us.

John Kerry, don't tell us you CAN'T legislate your morality on others. The truth is, you either don't really believe what you say you do, or you don't have the courage to stand up for your beliefs. It's one, or the other.

KG, excellent synopsis. There really is no way to debate what you and Sike have said with regards to Kerry's comments.
This is an instance where Kerry is simply attempting to appeal to as many possible voters as possible.

[sike]

Originally posted by: Murphy3

Sike, it's not like you know anything about religion...do you?

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] just a bit...

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
We HAVE had this discussion before. What Kerry's answer on Friday in response to the abortion question confirms is that Kerry is a moral coward.

The argument that you "can't legislate morality" is, frankly, ridiculous.

When we pass laws prohibiting the use of marijuana and cocaine, we are legislating morality.

When we pass laws prohibiting prostitution and marrying multiple people at the same time, we are legislating morality.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Court says gay marriage is permissible, it is legislating morality. When states pass laws prohibiting gay marriage, they are doing the same.

When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, it legislated its morality on the rest of us.

John Kerry, don't tell us you CAN'T legislate your morality on others. The truth is, you either don't really believe what you say you do, or you don't have the courage to stand up for your beliefs. It's one, or the other.

Did John Kerry specifically state that 'you can't legislate morality?'

I thought what he said was very clear despite what the feudalist backward christians would want from him. He said he respects the religious belief that life begins at conception and he says he shares that belief, but that he can't legislate something based on religion, and he's right. Separation of Church and State. There are many things that religious people oppose that have no business in our law books. If anyone's guilty of spin here it's the conservatives.

[sike]

Will all do respect, Epitome22, you are the one who comes off sounding "backward" and in intolerant in this last post. Especially since there has been plenty of Science done to argue the point of life at conception. It must be stated with certantity, that to my knowledge there has been no conclusive scientific research to show that life begins at a later point than conception...both sides of the debate use science to push their ethical arguments...the issue is very similar to evolution still being tought in schools as more than a mere theory...most cutting edge secular(non-religious) scientists today do not hold to the evolution that is still being tought in schools..they have modified it greatly to make the numbers a tad (only a tad mind you) more likely...But has that changed the fact that in most public schools the same old far fetched form of evolution is being tought? No. They still teach a weak theory as scientific fact. THE MODEL IS OUTDATED BUT STILL IN USE. Much the same as the point of life's beginnings...much study has been done to prove another possible point of view scientificallybut still little credence is given by those of the old model. This is sad, for both the scientific and the religious communities.

There are many things that religious people oppose that have no business in our law books.

I'll agree, there are some, but your point is feeble if you think that science and not ethics is more your governor on this issue.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
I thought what he said was very clear despite what the feudalist backward christians would want from him. He said he respects the religious belief that life begins at conception and he says he shares that belief, but that he can't legislate something based on religion, and he's right. Separation of Church and State. There are many things that religious people oppose that have no business in our law books. If anyone's guilty of spin here it's the conservatives.

You don't understand what "separation of church and state" means. In fact, you probably believe that those words are found in the Constitution. They aren't.

What our Constitution prohibits is establishment of a state religion. Congress can't pass a law establishing that the United States is a Methodist, Mormon, or Islamic nation. This is for the purpose of protecting religious freedom, not removing religious influence from the public arena. Over the course of time, the language of the Constitution has been twisted and distorted in an attempt to remove all of Christianity's influence over government. That was never the intent of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

If we follow your logic and we aren't permitted to legislate based upon religious beliefs or morality, then we need to strike down all of the murder laws in our country. After all, they are all based upon the Sixth Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." Let's also strike down all laws prohibiting stealing of any kind. After all, they are based upon the Eight Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal."

John Kerry wants people to believe that he doesn't have a choice because he can't "legislate" his beliefs on others. The fact is, he does have a choice, and he either doesn't really believe what he says or he is too much of a coward to stand up for his beliefs.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: reeds
I thought this was covered back in July?? Kerry made his point clear during debate #2..whats not to get??
He personally doesnt beleive in abortion himself,

no, he said he thinks you can take a position that's not pro-abortion. He didn't say in his answer what his position is.

but also does not feel he should tell a woman she cannot have an abortion (in a nutshell)..

no, he said he would counsel people about "making other choices", and affording people their constitutional rights. He never states in his answer what those rights are. Most importantly he never says a word in direct answer to Degenhart's question. Can anyone read his huge rambling dodge of an answer and tell me if he would or would not spend Degenhart's tax dollars on abortion?

Nevertheless, Reeds, I think you are right about assuming what Kerry's position on abortion is. And it is the absolute scariest position that could be held. He does believe that life starts at conception. He believes that a mother has the right to kill that life. Realize that Kerry himself believes that each and every aborted fetus was a living human. That's no small point. His position has removed the "not alive/alive" distinction from the legality of killing. He's replaced that with something so vague as "personhood as we've previously defined it". If our policy is really to be set along such idiotic lines, who would be in charge of deciding where personhood starts and stops (that is, deciding who can and cannot be killed)? Definitely not science, for "personhood" is definitely a step or two further away from science than is "life". Not religion, for Kerry believes religious views should not determine legislation. Not the government, for Kerry believes that the right to make the decision is constitutional. Evidently, it's mothers. According to Kerry's "position" on abortion, each and every mother should have the right to decide whether or not her own children are killable.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
Can anyone read his huge rambling dodge of an answer and tell me if he would or would not spend Degenhart's tax dollars on abortion?

Yes, he would. He talks about "making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise." He's talking about paying for an abortion if a person can't afford it.

According to Kerry's "position" on abortion, each and every mother should have the right to decide whether or not her own children are killable.

You're exactly right, and that highlights how absurd Kerry's position really is.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Yes, he would. He talks about "making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise." He's talking about paying for an abortion if a person can't afford it.

If I'm Kerry and someday I need to make it sound like I'm more pro-life than I've been portrayed, I'd say, "I was in a war where children were killed. I know the value of life. What I said during that second presidential debate was that poor people should be afforded whatever the constitution affords them. I made it quite clear in the next couple of sentences that I was talking about reducing AIDS, reducing the number of unwanted children, reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. I've made it clear that the belief of my deeply valued religion is that life begins at conception. I even stated in that answer that I would counsel people (as does my wife Teresa) and educate them about abstanence." I would still be free to make a claim at that point (if need be) about who might decide what the constitution does or does not afford.

[sike]

"Personhood" is where the modern abortionist will always take you. Because of course the "future human" as they so boldly call him/her is alive, science knows this..along with any mother who has ever felt her baby move in the womb ...but not yet a person or not yet fully human. The point, as UL put it so well is "Who decides when a future human has "actualized" it's humanity? Who should decide? Scientists? Doctors? Philosophers? Theologians(Heaven forbid...not those loonies)? Individual mothers?

Some abortionists are so moronic as to say that not until the fetus has passed the vaginal canal has it "actualized" humanity. Thus a half a second before it was still just a living mass of tissue or a "future human"(this is usually a person who advocates third-trimester abortion). And some, the most radical, say that a baby does not reach humanity or personhood until well into its life. (possible in the first or second year)

and of course, sadly, most people who take a stand in support of abortion never even give this deep thoughts consideration. They just see abortion simply a woman's rights issue so they passionately support it. I am not painting abortionists as non-thinkers...just poor ones.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

You don't understand what "separation of church and state" means. In fact, you probably believe that those words are found in the Constitution. They aren't.

I know they aren't.

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

What our Constitution prohibits is establishment of a state religion. Congress can't pass a law establishing that the United States is a Methodist, Mormon, or Islamic nation. This is for the purpose of protecting religious freedom, not removing religious influence from the public arena. Over the course of time, the language of the Constitution has been twisted and distorted in an attempt to remove all of Christianity's influence over government. That was never the intent of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

In addition to the prohibition of our state religion. Our noble lawmakers, as well as the lawmakers of several other advanced countries, have implemented and interpreted clauses of separation of church and state that include prohibiting the funding of religious organizations and activities and keeping religious beliefs out of the motivations of public policies. Preventing interference from religious authorities into state affairs, and disapproving of political leaders expressing religious preferences in the course of their duties. Quite rightly so. Secularism is our civil religion, has been since the Enlightenment, and has done more to contribute to the evolution of Western Liberal Democracies than the Theocrats ever did.

[quote]
Originally posted by: kg_veteran

[i]
If we follow your logic and we aren't permitted to legislate based upon religious beliefs or morality, then we need to strike down all of the murder laws in our country. After all, they are all based upon the Sixth Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." Let's also strike down all laws prohibiting stealing of any kind. After all, they are based upon the Eight Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal."

I never said anything against legislation of morality. I'm speaking of legislation of an article of faith. Laws against murder and laws against stealing have been around since Abraham was a twinkle in his Daddy's eye. If you think civilization wandered perpetuously through a state of moral relativism until the Ten Commandments came along then you are mistaken.

[quote]
Originally posted by: kg_veteran

[i]
John Kerry wants people to believe that he doesn't have a choice because he can't "legislate" his beliefs on others. The fact is, he does have a choice, and he either doesn't really believe what he says or he is too much of a coward to stand up for his beliefs.

He made himself perfectly clear. I wouldn't have made the mistake of trying to appease the theocrats as that's never a good idea, but if he is indeed a religious person, than I respect his loyalty to the country over whatever religious doctrine he subscribes too.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: sike
Will all do respect, Epitome22, you are the one who comes off sounding "backward" and in intolerant in this last post. Especially since there has been plenty of Science done to argue the point of life at conception.

Fine then. Document specific sources, preferably peer reviewed. Please exempt 'Christian science weekly' or any other absurd tome.

Originally posted by: sike

the issue is very similar to evolution still being tought in schools as more than a mere theory...most cutting edge secular(non-religious) scientists today do not hold to the evolution that is still being tought in schools..they have modified it greatly to make the numbers a tad (only a tad mind you) more likely...But has that changed the fact that in most public schools the same old far fetched form of evolution is being tought? No. They still teach a weak theory as scientific fact. THE MODEL IS OUTDATED BUT STILL IN USE.

If the model is outdated, than it needs updating. But I assure you, the model currently being taught is much closer to what is believed by most scientists, biologists and anthropologists with experience in the field than whatever you read in a Christian apologetics manuel.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
In addition to the prohibition of our state religion. Our noble lawmakers, as well as the lawmakers of several other advanced countries, have implemented and interpreted clauses of separation of church and state that include prohibiting the funding of religious organizations and activities and keeping religious beliefs out of the motivations of public policies. Preventing interference from religious authorities into state affairs, and disapproving of political leaders expressing religious preferences in the course of their duties. Quite rightly so. Secularism is our civil religion, has been since the Enlightenment, and has done more to contribute to the evolution of Western Liberal Democracies than the Theocrats ever did.

At least you're honest about it. There has been a concerted effort by various groups over the past century to remove religious influence from the public sector, which honestly started with the Scopes trial, and has progressed from there. All of it has been done under the guise of "separation of church and state." That was never the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but thanks to the distortion of those clauses by our Supreme Court, we now in effect do have a state religion: secularism.

I never said anything against legislation of morality. I'm speaking of legislation of an article of faith. Laws against murder and laws against stealing have been around since Abraham was a twinkle in his Daddy's eye. If you think civilization wandered perpetuously through a state of moral relativism until the Ten Commandments came along then you are mistaken.

Moral relativism is the ultimate goal of secularists and liberals, but I'm well aware that laws against murder and stealing have existed for a long time. And the vast majority of them have been based upon religioius teachings. So my point remains the same.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to draw between legislating an "article of faith" and legislating morality. Please elaborate.

He made himself perfectly clear. I wouldn't have made the mistake of trying to appease the theocrats as that's never a good idea, but if he is indeed a religious person, than I respect his loyalty to the country over whatever religious doctrine he subscribes too.

You're right. He did make himself perfectly clear. He's a weak-minded politician trying to pander to both sides at once.

Loyalty to the country? I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Every elected official tries to promote laws and advance agendas which reflect their beliefs. If John Kerry really believed that abortion is murder, then he would have voted for a ban on partial-birth abortions. He would have voted for parental notification laws. You may not view abortion as murder, but John Kerry has said that he does. If you believed that an act was murder, are you telling me that you would support another person's right to murder? That's ridiculous. No rational, sane person would support an act they believed to be murder. Thus, one can fairly assume that if you support the act, you don't believe it to be murder.

That's how we know where John Kerry really stands. We look at what he does (and how he votes), not what he says.

He can run, but he can't hide...