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

[dude1394]

What a stand-up guy.

As Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) campaigned across Iowa on Sunday 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 Sunday, Kerry broke new 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."

Who the hell know WHAT he believes. That outta fire up the "base".

[Mavdog]

I'm sure if you had the complete statement you would have posted it, so here it is. Actually quite clear on what he believes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul 4, 2004

Catholicism, politics can be delicate balance
John Kerry says his 'conscience is where it ought to be' within church teaching
by JEFFREY PATCH

Dubuque Catholic leaders say when John F. Kerry, the first Catholic candidate on a major presidential ticket since John F. Kennedy, walks up to the altar at a Dubuque-area Church today, he need not worry whether the priest will provide him with Holy Communion.

"I'm a person of faith, and I care enormously about my faith," he told the Telegraph Herald during an interview Saturday on his campaign bus traveling through western Wisconsin.

While serving on a swiftboat during the Vietnam War, Kerry wore a rosary around his neck and prayed during the dark hours of combat.

"I'm confident I wouldn't be here if God didn't help carry me through that," he said.

Kerry campaign officials declined to name which church Kerry will attend in Dubuque this morning. A spokesman said he regularly attends church on Sundays.

"When I examine my conscience, I believe my conscience is where it ought to be within Catholic teaching, which also teaches about war, about the environment, about children, about poverty, about capitol punishment and many other things," Kerry said.

As the issue of mixing Catholicism and politics heats up nationally - specifically whether some politicians such as Kerry are 'Catholic enough' - many local politicians and political experts say Catholics judge a candidate on merit rather than religion, even in a town like Dubuque, brimming with Catholics.

A few Catholic bishops caused a stir in the past few months by condemning politicians who support abortion, saying such leaders should not receive the sacrament of Communion.

"Vatican II is very clear. There is something called freedom of conscience in the Catholic Church. You have to examine your conscience," Kerry said. "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist... who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

Only a handful of the 300-some Catholic bishops support denying Eucharist to politicians who support a woman's right to choose, said Monsignor James Barta, vicar general and spokesman for the Dubuque Archdiocese.

The church need not decide who it deems worthy to receive Holy Communion, rather parishioners should reflect on the state of their soul, he said.

"A person should not receive communion if they are aware of committing a serious sin and not being forgiven," Barta said. "That judgment is made by the person himself, not the person giving communion."

The Dubuque Archdiocese only considers barring a person from communion due to a "grave scandal," and only after church officials discuss the matter with the person in question.

Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, assistant minority leader in the Iowa state house, said he makes legislative decisions based on his value system, not necessarily religion, and he ignores the condemnation from some bishops.

"Religion has an effect on it," said Murphy, who attends a Catholic church each Sunday. "But it's not something that makes my decision for me."

Politicians walk the fine line of religion - specifically the notion of separation of church and state - every day.

The Iowa Legislature starts every session with a five-to 10-minute morning prayer.

"In God We Trust" marks U.S. currency, the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld, on a technicality, the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, and people still swear an oath on a Bible before testifying in a court of law.

The Catholic Church, the largest U.S. religious denomination with about 62 million members according to the 2003 Catholic Almanac, remains a coveted swing voter block among strategists in both major parties.

The nation has fundamentally changed since the 1960s, when leery voters viewed Catholicism as a liability, because historically a Catholic's first loyalty lies with the Vatican.

"The days when Catholicism was a disqualification are over," said David Cochran, associate professor of politics at Loras College. "A Catholic politician is more likely to get in trouble with Catholics rather than non-Catholics."

Cochran, who co-authored "Catholics, Politics, and Public Policy: Beyond Left and Right," said the Catholic Church has recently slipped as an authority in ethical matters.

"There was this sense that bishops were a moral authority," Cochran said. "The last few years, their moral credibility has been called into question because of their handling of the (sexual abuse) crisis."

Most Catholic laypeople in the tri-states decide electoral matters based on a specific values comparison rather than a religious test, said Rex Reynolds, who serves as a sacristan at St. Raphael's Cathedral.

"It doesn't make any difference to me whether they're Catholic or Baptist or Jewish," he said. "What matters is what they choose to do, and how I view that from my perspective."

Reynolds, who describes his presidential political stance as "anybody but Bush," said "there are no black-and-white issues in politics. "

"Abortion is a black-and-white issue for an individual, and it is black and white in terms of your having or your spouse having an abortion," he said. "That is the only place it is black and white."

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., released an analysis of votes and legislative actions in early June of Catholic U.S. senators, based on the official positions taken on legislation weighted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The 10 Republican senators averaged 43 percent of votes in accordance with Catholic teaching, while the senate's 14 Democrats averaged 54 percent.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, also a practicing Catholic, said religion may guide politicians, but voters should examine the entire spectrum of issues.

Harkin said he believes religion can form a basis for decisions, "but it cannot be a litmus test for how one votes."

Federal regulations permit clergy to take stands on specific issues and ballot issues, but the church may not endorse or contribute to political candidates from its pulpit.
2004 Telegraph Herald

[dude1394]

I think I understand the staddling he's trying to do here.

"Vatican II is very clear. There is something called freedom of conscience in the Catholic Church. You have to examine your conscience," Kerry said. "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist... who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

How does this jibe with his insistence that he would use a litmus test for judges who weren't 100 percent in the abortion camp? How does this jibe with his 100% rating from Naral? How does this jibe with him being one of only 17 senators who voted against partial-birth abotion and the sucking of living babies brains out.

It's immoral to the extreme. If he believe that life began in the first trimester, ok. If he believed it began in the second trimester ok. But by his reasoning if the court decided that the woman could abort the baby a week after birth, he would be ok with it.

I'm not an adamant anti-abortionist, but good grief you can't waffle this fence, you either DO or DO NOT believe that a baby is being murdered at some time or another. The man has a pretty out-of-whack moral compass.

[Usually Lurkin]

Dude's right.

If he thinks life begins at conception, but argues that abortion should not be illegal, he needs to explain himself a little more.
Either he's got some criteria for distinguishing pre-birth life from post-birth life that he's not sharing, or he's just saying stuff to satisfy whatever crowd he's talking to.

Or he thinks that we should not have laws against murder (presumably because religion does), and that it should be up to the discretion of individuals whether or not they should kill other people.

[reeds]

"If he thinks life begins at conception, but argues that abortion should not be illegal, he needs to explain himself a little more. "


Whats more to explain? Many including myself have the same belief. At conception there is a soul, but the bottom line is that its the womans choice. I feel there are many people who are pro-life, but also straddle the fence on this issue. I am pro- life- but who am I to say its not the womans choice?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: reeds
. At conception there is a soul, but the bottom line is that its the womans choice. I feel there are many people who are pro-life, but also straddle the fence on this issue. I am pro- life- but who am I to say its not the womans choice?

If the person is alive at conception, then killing it is killing it, and is murder. People argue that the fetus is not alive so that they can rationalize the act of abortion by claiming that you can't kill something that's not alive.

To argue that the fetus is alive, and can be killed legally begs the question, why not allow the same right to mothers for all of their children, born or not. Further explanation is needed to explain why it's ok to kill some living humans but not others.

[Mavdog]

The point that Kerry is making is his personal opinion about when life begins- an opinion mind you as there is no certainty, based on his convictions as well as his Church-is one thing, legislating that belief is not the solution.

Kerry also understands that his opinion is and isn't shared by others, all of whom have their own opinion about when the State has a "person" to protect.

His conclusion is the individual must make their own choice, not the State.

[u2sarajevo]

I get it. He wants to take the easy stand on the issue. On the one hand he is against it (you know, on Sundays and such), and then when he is in front of his democratic cronies he wants to give women the right to murder their children.

Makes perfect sense. Wow, what a clear conscience he must have.

I have a feeling I know what Kerry eats every day for Breakfast.

[FishForLunch]

As the election nears you will soon find out that he belives he is a republican at heart but is a democrat by necessity.

Here is another flip flop as the election nears

INDEPENDENCE, Wis. -- Senator John F. Kerry took a step away from New England in his quest for the White House yesterday, as the politician known for his patrician roots highlighted his farming past and said he no longer supported a program that propped up prices for New England dairy farmers.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told about 100 gathered at a western Wisconsin dairy farm that he empathized with the plight of rural residents because he, too, had not only farmed as a child, but he had lived, and had learned to cuss, in that earthy environment

[MavKikiNYC]

Edit.

[FreshJive]

I hate to defend Kerry, but this is not a flip-flop. According to Kerry's RELIGIOUS point of view life begins at conception. However, because we do not live in IRAN Kerry is not going to make legal judgements based on his religious views.

Of course who knows if Kerry really believes any of this.

[Drbio]

If you ask him he will change his mind in a few minutes based on the audience.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: FreshJive
I hate to defend Kerry, but this is not a flip-flop. According to Kerry's RELIGIOUS point of view life begins at conception. However, because we do not live in IRAN Kerry is not going to make legal judgements based on his religious views.

Of course who knows if Kerry really believes any of this.

There is a way to know what kerry really believes in. It's in all of his votes for what 20 years of so of senate work. It's in statements he has made when speaking. Every vote he's taken, every statement he's made points to the fact that he is on the side of the most aggressive abortionists in this country. The side he is own is every bit as pro-abortion as the most radical pro-gun lobby is, there is no difference in their stances.

He believes that a woman has a right to abort a fully term baby until RIGHT BEFORE the WHOLE baby has passed from the mother. THAT's what he believes in. I see nothing in his record or his statements that show any other "nuanced" position. Sort of sounds like someone who's struggling with their own conscience to me and trying to rationalize it.

[FreshJive]

I fully agree that partial birth abortion is murder and I think its legality increases opposition among public opinion to legal early abortions. For whatever reason, pro abortion supporters seem to think that if you make PBA illegal then its only one step away from making all abortions illegal, so because of this they refuse to make a moral judgement about something that is obviously murder.

Kerry is a political chameleon no doubt. This is why I say who knows what he thinks? His voting record is what it is because the pro-abortionists tell him how to vote, including voting against PBA restrictions. He still may hold the personal belief that abortion is wrong. Things like this make it difficult for me to align myself with any party.

[Usually Lurkin]

Mavdog and FreshJive,
If the possession of life is not the distinction of who can and cannot be killed, what is?
Or, put another way: if moms wanted to kill their 2 month olds, or 2 year olds, should they be allowed to?

Kerry is like a politician a couple of centuries ago who might've claimed to be personally against slavery, but for someone elses legal right to own slaves.

Killing someone else is one of those things that's wrong above and beyond what some set of laws might say about it. To claim that you think killing is wrong, but that it's ok for others to kill is to say that it's ok to kill.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
Mavdog and FreshJive,
If the possession of life is not the distinction of who can and cannot be killed, what is?
Or, put another way: if moms wanted to kill their 2 month olds, or 2 year olds, should they be allowed to?

The question is this: When does the State have a Person who is protected by the Laws of the State, specifically the Law against taking another Person's life?
In your example of the mother and the "2 month olds, 2 year olds" these children are People by definition; they have been legally born and given rights (the Birth Certificate) and the protection of the State.
Clearly the mother is not "allowed to..kill" these children.

Kerry is like a politician a couple of centuries ago who might've claimed to be personally against slavery, but for someone elses legal right to own slaves.

I can see how that analogy could apply, OTOH the issues are very different, especially with our nation's beliefs that "every man is created equal" and the contradiction with a slave/owner. In slavery the State extends rights to a Person and then denies the same rights to another Person, yet according to our nation's creed both should have the same rights.

Killing someone else is one of those things that's wrong above and beyond what some set of laws might say about it. To claim that you think killing is wrong, but that it's ok for others to kill is to say that it's ok to kill.

It all depends on what you believe is the beginning of life, if life doesn't yet exist there is no "killing".

[Usually Lurkin]

If someone believes that life begins after the solidification of memory formation, then should they be allowed to kill their two year old?

If someone believes that life begins at menopause, are they allowed to kill anyone who has not gone through menopause?

Am I allowed to kill anyone who do not have a US birth certificate?

It all depends on what you believe is the beginning of life, if life doesn't yet exist there is no "killing"

Kerry says the fetus is alive. To him, abortion must be "killing". According to Kerry, and others who try to straddle the fence in the same way, it's ok for a mother to kill her living children.

And that's barbaric.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
If someone believes that life begins after the solidification of memory formation, then should they be allowed to kill their two year old?

no.

If someone believes that life begins at menopause, are they allowed to kill anyone who has not gone through menopause?

no.

Am I allowed to kill anyone who do not have a US birth certificate?

no.

It all depends on what you believe is the beginning of life, if life doesn't yet exist there is no "killing"

Kerry says the fetus is alive. To him, abortion must be "killing". According to Kerry, and others who try to straddle the fence in the same way, it's ok for a mother to kill her living children.[/quote]

I cannot place words in "Kerry and others" mouths, but I do not see what you choose to see in their position. They personally believe that life begins at conception, but in that it is a belief and not a verifiable fact, they do not expect that the State should be obligated to mandate that same position, and force that position onto all its citizens.

And that's barbaric.

lots of barbaric situations out there. Should we legislate all of them?

[Usually Lurkin]

In your example of the mother and the "2 month olds, 2 year olds" these children are People by definition; they have been legally born and given rights (the Birth Certificate) and the protection of the State.

Quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I allowed to kill anyone who do not have a US birth certificate?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
no.

Then your earlier mention of protection by birth certificate really doesn't mean anything, does it?

in that it is a belief and not a verifiable fact, they do not expect that the State should be obligated to mandate that same position, and force that position onto all its citizens.

Can you verify as fact that a 2 year old infant is alive?

[Usually Lurkin]

This is from the US department of justice website ( http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia...9/crm01536.htm)

At issue is the word "killing" which is usually defined in terms of the termination of a life.

Section 1751(a) of Title 18 incorporates by reference 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1112. 18 U.S.C. § 1111 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, and divides it into two degrees. Murder in the first degree is punishable by death. In any case in which the death penalty may be applicable, it is necessary for the United States Attorney to follow the procedures set forth in USAM 9-10.000. The Attorney General must authorize the United States Attorney to seek the death penalty in any case. Any other kind of murder is murder in the second degree and is punishable by any term of imprisonment including life.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

Then your earlier mention of protection by birth certificate really doesn't mean anything, does it?

Actually it isn't "protection by birth certificate" it is the point at which the State extends its protection to a Person. The State defines this point in its Laws extending rights.

in that it is a belief and not a verifiable fact, they do not expect that the State should be obligated to mandate that same position, and force that position onto all its citizens.

Can you verify as fact that a 2 year old infant is alive?[/quote]

I am confident that it can be done, one just needs to define "alive". The State does...

[kg_veteran]

For years, pro-abortionists have asserted the argument that "you can't legislate morality." And that argument is thoroughly disingenuous.

Before Roe v. Wade, it was illegal to abort a baby. When that decision was handed down by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court DID legislate morality. The Supreme Court made a moral determination as to when life began. Now that Roe v. Wade and its progeny are the law, everyone argues that you "can't legislate morality." Hogwash. You're legislating morality, one way or the other.

Having said that, UL has pretty accurately summarized John Kerry's hypocrisy here. If he thinks that life begins at conception then he believes that murder (the intentional taking of human life) in certain instances IS acceptable.

[kg_veteran]

Also, I don't really get the "belief vs. verifiable fact" argument. At all.

My wife is currently 22 weeks pregnant with our second son. I was there at 6 weeks when she had the first ultrasound. We saw the heartbeat then, before you could even hear it. Not only did I believe my son to be alive; there was objective, verifiable proof (his heartbeat).

Life can be scientifically verified, and verified VERY early on. Because of the way nature works, women don't even know they're pregnant until they're at least 4-5 weeks along. Within a week of that point, we had objective, scientific verification that our son was alive. It was not only a belief; it was a fact.

In other words, the whole "belief vs. verifiable fact" argument is an attempted distinction made by those who are trying to pass off a barbaric viewpoint as rationally and intellectually acceptable.

[Mavdog]

so, I'll take the bait, just when does "life" start oh wise one?

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
so, I'll take the bait, just when does "life" start oh wise one?

Another trash "response".....

[reeds]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Mavdog
so, I'll take the bait, just when does "life" start oh wise one?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Another trash "response"..... "

Another trash response??? IF that isnt the pot calling the kettle black...from DRBIO- the king of trash responses (if the views do not agree with his)

[mavsman55]

For all of you who are saying it's not murder to kill a child that hasn't been born yet because that baby isn't "alive":

Whether it's murder or not, it's ridiculous that you would favor a woman's mere choice over a baby's chance to live. And the only difference between an unborn fetus and a baby that's been born is that the unborn fetus hasn't popped out of a vagina yet. THAT'S IT. One is inside a womb, one is outside. Is it fair to kill people because they are inside a certain state but killing everyone else outside of that state is illegal?

John Kerry is an absolute idiot for claiming babies are alive at conception but still finding a way to be pro-choice.

[dude1394]

Kerry's position on partial birth abortion says all that needs to be said about his morality. I don't even see why they even bother sucking the brains out of the baby and crushing it's skull with the head outside the mother and the rest inside. They should just go ahead and deliver it, define it to not actually be alive until the umbilical cord is cut. I mean what's the diff and it's probably safer for the mother. Maybe even do a c-section?..

It's undefendable, but the most liberal senator in the united states believes that a litmus test should be used for judges to uphold this type of murder...

BUTTTTT....He REALLY believes that the baby is a person at conception! What a crock of dung.

[reeds]

"Whether it's murder or not, it's ridiculous that you would favor a woman's mere choice over a baby's chance to live."

Are you by chance a woman MavsMan? Didnt think so. Neither am I. So who are we to say the woman cannot make that choice? I do NOT beleive abortion should be used as a cheap way out, a form of birth control if you will.. BUT- there are many other reasons why the bottom line is, its the womans choice.
If you believe that abortion is wrong for you, but respect the right of others to make that decision for themselves, then you are pro-choice. That is my beleif..I dont think its right- but im not making that view LAW for everyone else.. How about the 14,000 per year that are pregnant from incest or rape? How bout the woman who are so poor, bringing a child into the world makes no sense at all to them? Everyone suffers.. and an unhappy mother could potentionally abuse her child, neglect, etc...again, I am not saying abortion is right- but I am saying each case is different, and I will not talk down to a woman who has made that choice...

[mavsman55]

So you're saying that it's OK for a woman to kill her child due to inconvenience? There are orphanages for a reason. If a woman can't afford a child, you're saying that killing it makes more sense than giving it a chance to live and grow up in an orphanage? The bottom line is, depriving a child of its chance to live due to your hardships or inconveniences is barbaric and disgusting.

[dalmations202]

Originally posted by: reeds
"Whether it's murder or not, it's ridiculous that you would favor a woman's mere choice over a baby's chance to live."

Are you by chance a woman MavsMan? Didnt think so. Neither am I. So who are we to say the woman cannot make that choice? I do NOT beleive abortion should be used as a cheap way out, a form of birth control if you will.. BUT- there are many other reasons why the bottom line is, its the womans choice.
If you believe that abortion is wrong for you, but respect the right of others to make that decision for themselves, then you are pro-choice. That is my beleif..I dont think its right- but im not making that view LAW for everyone else.. How about the 14,000 per year that are pregnant from incest or rape? How bout the woman who are so poor, bringing a child into the world makes no sense at all to them? Everyone suffers.. and an unhappy mother could potentionally abuse her child, neglect, etc...again, I am not saying abortion is right- but I am saying each case is different, and I will not talk down to a woman who has made that choice...

You hypocrite. That is the bottom line. Anyone who says it is the "woman's right" to take a Childs life whether born or unborn is a hypocrite. Do not use the term "legal" either, because that is a term man uses. Legal is a man made term used to justify why we do things.

I know you do not believe that Saddam and his sons had the "right" to rape, and kill anyone they wanted. Yet they could have made any law they wanted to and it would have been "legal". Slavery was legal, but was it "right". Laws and morality are defined in the Bible. You can justify your sin all you want. Man can destroy the fabric that makes us men. The judicial system in the country can destroy the Constitution - which was based upon the Bible - and wait for the country to destroy itself. It is happening.

It is not an opinion though, that killing a fetus is wrong. IT IS WRONG. You are correct though, that a woman has the "right" to make a choice. She has the "right" to not sleep with the guy. She has the "right" to say NO. She has the "right" to not put herself in the position where she might be getting pregnant. She has the "right" to keep herself safe. She has many "rights", and if they are broken, then many people will go to get the person who destroyed her "rights".

She does not have the "right" to take the life of the child though. The justices who decided on Roe-vs-Wade were WRONG. They are men who decided that a Woman had the right to take the life of another being. That was WRONG. If Saddam's "justices" decided that all Sunni men had the right to rape and murder all "Shite" women, and passed that as a "law", it still doesn't make it RIGHT. Life is sacred. Nothing you can say or do will make it any less sacred. Nothing you can say or do will ever make taking the life child (born or unborn) RIGHT.

[FreshJive]

"Slavery was legal, but was it "right". Laws and morality are defined in the Bible. You can justify your sin all you want."

The Bible can and has been used to justify legalized slavery. It turns out you can also use the Bible to justify your evils. Humans have the ability to rationalize anything. I will freely admit that support for leagalized abortion is quite possibly a rationalization of a barbaric viewpoint as someone pointed out.

[u2sarajevo]

I wouldn't compare the laws of the US with the laws of a defunct dictator 202...

This is where this whole conversation gets sticky, because reeds/mavdog are going to counter with a number of possible questions for you...

1. What about rape?
2. What about incest?
3. When are your left hand?

Or they might bring up that the Bible doesn't legislate the laws of this land (you know church/state separation and such)...

Also, I agree that reeds is being hypocritical... but it's not because he says "it is the "woman's right" to take a Childs life whether born or unborn" but because he claims he is against abortion and believe it is wrong, yet supports a woman's right to kill her unborn child because it's her body. I mean, which is it? It can't be both. Taking that stand, as Kerry is, smells of trying to cover your bases for both sides of the debate. (and eating more pancakes for breakfast)

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
so, I'll take the bait, just when does "life" start oh wise one?

I thought I made my position on that issue pretty clear. But thanks for the smart-aleck reply.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: reeds
Are you by chance a woman MavsMan? Didnt think so. Neither am I. So who are we to say the woman cannot make that choice? I do NOT beleive abortion should be used as a cheap way out, a form of birth control if you will.. BUT- there are many other reasons why the bottom line is, its the womans choice.

If you believe that abortion is wrong for you, but respect the right of others to make that decision for themselves, then you are pro-choice. That is my beleif..I dont think its right- but im not making that view LAW for everyone else..

It's either right or it's wrong. You don't get to take this halfway, fence-riding position that it's wrong but also can be right for certain people.

How about the 14,000 per year that are pregnant from incest or rape?

Why should the child be punished for the crime committed by his parent(s)?

How bout the woman who are so poor, bringing a child into the world makes no sense at all to them?

So you think it's okay to kill a child because his/her mother is destitute?

Everyone suffers.. and an unhappy mother could potentionally abuse her child, neglect, etc...

So you think it's okay to kill a child because his/he mother might abuse or neglect him/her?

Again, I am not saying abortion is right- but I am saying each case is different, and I will not talk down to a woman who has made that choice...

What you're saying is that you don't have enough backbone to stand up for what you believe is right.

[Drbio]

That's all that he has in his bag. Well that and and moronic reeds.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: reeds
How about the 14,000 per year that are pregnant from incest or rape? .

Proof please.

NYTimes doesn't count. by the way.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

I thought I made my position on that issue pretty clear. But thanks for the smart-aleck reply.

sorry, not intended it to be "smart-aleck" (was it the "oh wise one"? chalk it up to written vs spoken), just a simple question that your post didn't explain. You mention "I was there at 6 weeks", also "Life can be scientifically verified, and verified VERY early on". In your opinion, when does "life" begin? At the fertilizing? When they cells begin to divide? When the heart beats?

You make the statement "the whole "belief vs. verifiable fact" argument is an attempted distinction made by those who are trying to pass off a barbaric viewpoint as rationally and intellectually acceptable" yet you don't provide the evidence to support nor the quantification for that view.

[dalmations202]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
I wouldn't compare the laws of the US with the laws of a defunct dictator 202...

Why? If you are using LEGAL as justification of something, then "who's laws" are you going by? Some of the Laws of the US are just as bad. So are you saying that it is OK to follow Hitlers laws (killing of Jews) while in Germany (or any country he took over), but when you go to the US, you should follow US law.

Please do not give me man's LAW to justify right/wrong, because MAN is known to mess things up throughout history.

And KG was dead on:
When that decision was handed down by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court DID legislate morality. The Supreme Court made a moral determination as to when life began. Now that Roe v. Wade and its progeny are the law, everyone argues that you "can't legislate morality." Hogwash. You're legislating morality, one way or the other.

This is where this whole conversation gets sticky, because reeds/mavdog are going to counter with a number of possible questions for you...

1. What about rape?
2. What about incest?
3. When are your left hand?

What about rape? What about incest? I didn't say either were "right". What about the child, is it OK then to kill it?

It is only sticky, if you do not have a true belief, and cannot defend your belief. I know the answer, because I have studied the Bible. I have one belief, based upon the Bible. Man can make up arguments all they want. Man can justify to himself all he wants. You can use all the retorical stuff, and make all the excuses they want to. It boils down to one thing --- either man is in charge, or God is in charge. If man is in charge, then he makes the rules, and justifies them as he sees fit. He only answers to the greatest majority(might), and <u>might</u> makes right in every instance. Example....I can kill, as long as I have enough people around me to make sure that someone doesn't do it to me. Hitler believed this, Stalin, Mussolini, Kahn, Saddam. It is hypocrisy to say that something can be done because of "man's laws". People have been doing this since the days of Nimrod though, and it even goes back farther to Cain justifying himself killing Able.

If this is the case, and Man is truly in charge, then their can be no "everlasting" life. If their is not everlasting life, then why be Good or Bad? You have no future, their is no reason that can justify your actions either way, and you cannot have a soul. Why shouldn't I just shoot you and kill you. The only recourse you might possibly give me is death, which doesn't matter anyway (right). Being good doesn't matter, being bad doesn't matter. Man makes up the rules, and "right" is determined by "who can enforce".

Truthfully we live in this world today. That is why the Bible states that Satan is ruling the world today.

Or they might bring up that the Bible doesn't legislate the laws of this land (you know church/state separation and such)...

Funny, the founding fathers wanted people to not have to belong to a State religion, and "today's man" makes it out to be that God needs to be removed from State affairs. Another of Mans devices to try to act like he is God. The time is near when this will not be done.

Also, I agree that reeds is being hypocritical... but it's not because he says "it is the "woman's right" to take a Childs life whether born or unborn" but because he claims he is against abortion and believe it is wrong, yet supports a woman's right to kill her unborn child because it's her body. I mean, which is it? It can't be both. Taking that stand, as Kerry is, smells of trying to cover your bases for both sides of the debate. (and eating more pancakes for breakfast)

it is still hypocrisy for either reason

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I apologize, to all who are reading this. I did not mean to get into an argument with anyone here. I am a father of 5, and it burns me how people try to justify abortion. I have stated my belief.

I have always been told to never talk politics or religion...... I Probably should have taken this advise.

[FreshJive]

I would assume that most of you find abortion to be morally evil because you believe that humans are given a soul at conception. This is a religious belief. Laws can be made on moral judgements but they are not supposed to be on religious beliefs.

I personally find abortion to be morally wrong because you are killing a highly sentient being (not just because it alive). This is a moral belief. However I think its reasonable that someone else could believe that a human who is a day past conception should not yet be considered a person legally. I do not believe that a person can reasonably decide that a fetus old enough for partial birth abortion should not be considered a human legally, because at some point a fetus becomes a highly sentient being.