John Kerry and Abortion

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

John Kerry is pro-choice, yet believes life begins at conception. Now this position just doesn't make sense to me personally.

"I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Jul4.html


Kerry's Pro-Choice position:
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Essentially Kerry argues that an unborn child's life ought not undermine a woman's right to privacy.

Now I don't believe any normal person in his right mind would be pro-choice IF they sincerely believed abortion was murder (or intentional killing of a human being if one wants to get into semantics).

If Kerry believes life begins at conception, consistant his Catholic beliefs, as he says he does, then he must certainly believe abortion immoral and an unjustified act of taking human life. So how can he be pro-choice and condone abortion?

My idea of Kerry's position on abortion is reduced to 2 conclusions:
1.) Kerry sincerely believes abortion is murder and an immoral act, yet condones it and fights for pro-choice anyways.
2.) Kerry does not believe abortion is murder/immoral, but says he believes it is.

The implication of #1 is that Kerry is a madman. One must be morally insane to sincerely believe that an unborn child is being killed, yet politically fight for and justify the killing of unborn children.

The implication of #2 is that Kerry is a liar. Perhaps he's just saying he believes life begins at conception to appease Catholic and pro-life voters?

Kerry's position on stem-cell research also seems to have these same troubling either/or implications. He is an advocate for advances in embryonic stem-cell research. And of course this kind of research ought to greatly trouble people who believe life begins at conception.

Is John Kerry putting politics over morality? Aren't politics supposed to be based on morality? I have heard John Kerry claim we need a leader with "strong values." Given his position on abortion and stem-cell research, are we supposed to believe Kerry is talking about himself?

[Jose]

Now as to rich corporate donations, do you know to whom Senator Kerry is married? The Heinz ketchup family...talk about money to candidates. He is as big business as Bush and don't think he got where he is without taking money himself...I suppose we'll find out later where his loyalties are if he becomes elected. Most men and women in power have gotten there because of money. I'd bet you'd be shocked at the amount of money that Senator Kerry has raised in order to defeat President Bush, and some of it may be coming from special interest groups, such as NOW.

The fact that money is involved isn't the problem. You can't be a politician without it. It's the fact that Bush has consistently produced legislation that favors Big Corporations at the expense of you and me. He's increased pollution so that energy companies can make bigger profits by escaping regulations, at the expense of the public getting more chronic diseases that are caused by the pollutants. He cut the tax credit for hybrid cars from $2000 (when he took office) to $1500 (now), yet he says he's put a tax credit in place! At the same time, he increased the tax credit on Hummers from $68,000 to $100,000. This gives the oil and auto industries fat profits, at the expense of air pollution, global warming, and the decimation of the world's oil stocks, all of which will adversely affect the public. His "hydrogen economy" is based on making hydrogen from oil, releasing CO2 at the plant, and therefore doesn't save anything.

Given his track record on things that really matter, I think it is imperative that we get rid of him before he does more damage. Kerry's stand on abortion pales by comparison--especially since a majority of Americans favor a woman's right to choose. Kerry at least is on the side of the American public.

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

Boo otseng!

I guess I've said what I've need to say on John Kerry's position here. I'm going to copy/paste my abortion argument and reply to Corvus on the Abortion thread.

[turtleguy]

John Kerry is pro-choice, yet believes life begins at conception. Now this position just doesn't make sense to me personally.

"I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Jul4.html


Kerry's Pro-Choice position:
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Essentially Kerry argues that an unborn child's life ought not undermine a woman's right to privacy.

Now I don't believe any normal person in his right mind would be pro-choice IF they sincerely believed abortion was murder (or intentional killing of a human being if one wants to get into semantics).

If Kerry believes life begins at conception, consistant his Catholic beliefs, as he says he does, then he must certainly believe abortion immoral and an unjustified act of taking human life. So how can he be pro-choice and condone abortion?

My idea of Kerry's position on abortion is reduced to 2 conclusions:
1.) Kerry sincerely believes abortion is murder and an immoral act, yet condones it and fights for pro-choice anyways.
2.) Kerry does not believe abortion is murder/immoral, but says he believes it is.

The implication of #1 is that Kerry is a madman. One must be morally insane to sincerely believe that an unborn child is being killed, yet politically fight for and justify the killing of unborn children.

The implication of #2 is that Kerry is a liar. Perhaps he's just saying he believes life begins at conception to appease Catholic and pro-life voters?

Kerry's position on stem-cell research also seems to have these same troubling either/or implications. He is an advocate for advances in embryonic stem-cell research. And of course this kind of research ought to greatly trouble people who believe life begins at conception.

Is John Kerry putting politics over morality? Aren't politics supposed to be based on morality? I have heard John Kerry claim we need a leader with "strong values." Given his position on abortion and stem-cell research, are we supposed to believe Kerry is talking about himself?

nothing our good ole goose hunt'n boy says makes any sense

[perfessor]

nothing our good ole goose hunt'n boy says makes any sense

Turtleguy, it must bother you to no end to realize that whoever wins the election next week, we won't have a pro-life president.

[Jose]

Is John Kerry putting politics over morality? Aren't politics supposed to be based on morality? I have heard John Kerry claim we need a leader with "strong values." Given his position on abortion and stem-cell research, are we supposed to believe Kerry is talking about himself?

Maybe you should tell us what "morality" is, turtleguy. Is it onlyi what your posts imply: saving the life of an inanimate blob of cells that happens to have diploid human DNA, regardless of all other considerations? Or is morality actually more like what Kerry believes in: assuring the greatest good for the greatest number of people? The Bible doesn't tell me to protect inanimate blobs, but it does tell me to help others. Doesn't this mean that to be a good Christian, I need to protect as many others as possible, and do the greatest good for the greatest number?

[turtleguy]

Turtleguy, it must bother you to no end to realize that whoever wins the election next week, we won't have a pro-life president.

i never got why you said that. hmmmmmm, no, it doesn't bother me that much

[perfessor]

Turtleguy, it must bother you to no end to realize that whoever wins the election next week, we won't have a pro-life president.

i never got why you said that. hmmmmmm, no, it doesn't bother me that much

My point was, that Bush cannot honestly claim to be pro-life. For example:

1) He has dragged us into a preemptive war, a war of choice, when diplomatic efforts were still in process (but being actively undercut by the Bush administration). The war has cost, by some extimates, 100,000 lives. I am not arguing whether or not the results have justified the cost - only that the cost, in terms of human lives, has been very high.

2) As governor of Texas, he enthusiastically embraced the death penalty. According to some accounts, he gave only cursory reviews of appeals (didn't grant a single one), including cases in which defendants had incompetent representation. Again, I am not arguing the merits of capital punishment. But to my way of thinking, a pro-life position would lean toward life without parole. For one thing, the defendant just might be innocent (here in Illinois, our republican governor emptied death row with a blanket commutation, citing endemic errors in the trial and sentencing processes). For another, I would expect Christian compassion to give even the most heinous criminals an opportunity to repent and seek salvation. But not Bush.

3) I understand the revulsion most people feel about abortion. I do in fact share that revulsion. This leads me to seek ideas that reduce the number of abortions. Ironically, after abortions had declined during the Clinton administration, they rose again under Bush. My opinion (which I understand you may not share) is that failed policies such as "abstinence only" sex education, and funding cuts for birth control education and counselling, have had the wrong effect on the problem. Bush may delusionally claim the moral high ground because "premarital sex is wrong", but in the real world, teenagers do in fact have sex. The less educated they are, the more at risk they are. Bush's policies are responsible for more abortions, not less, so hardly qualify as "pro-life."

[Jose]

Gosh, perfessor. You're implying that being pro-life requires applying a single moral standard across the board. No, no, no--it doesn't work like that! The important thing here is Moral Relativity. It's OK to kill people if you can convince yourself that they are Bad Guys. Pro-life doesn't mean "pro-life." It means "pro-my-favorite-political-agenda" which in this case, is anti-choice (or more accurately, anti-the-people-who-favor-choice).

I understand the revulsion most people feel about abortion. I do in fact share that revulsion. This leads me to seek ideas that reduce the number of abortions. Ironically, after abortions had declined during the Clinton administration, they rose again under Bush. My opinion (which I understand you may not share) is that failed policies such as "abstinence only" sex education, and funding cuts for birth control education and counselling, have had the wrong effect on the problem. Bush may delusionally claim the moral high ground because "premarital sex is wrong", but in the real world, teenagers do in fact have sex. The less educated they are, the more at risk they are. Bush's policies are responsible for more abortions, not less, so hardly qualify as "pro-life."

Too true, too true. Part of the problem is that he has removed so much useful information from the NIH and CDC websites. Condoms help prevent the spread of AIDS--but let's get rid of the information, because condoms are designed for having *** (we can't actually use that nasty word, you know). But then, that Moral Relativity comes into play here, in that he may think it's OK if poor people get AIDS from premarital sex, because they'll die--thereby selecting for people who are either abstinent or unsure what to do. It's sort of reverse rapture--let the non-Saved kill themselves off by risky behavior, leaving the remains of the world for the righteous.

[Titan]

1) He has dragged us into a preemptive war, a war of choice, when diplomatic efforts were still in process (but being actively undercut by the Bush administration). The war has cost, by some extimates, 100,000 lives. I am not arguing whether or not the results have justified the cost - only that the cost, in terms of human lives, has been very high.

I ask you, is it possible for someone to support WWII and be pro-life. You see, a terrorist isn't on the same moral plain as an innocent child. One is attempting to oust power by killing innocent civilians while the other merely longs to live.

2) As governor of Texas, he enthusiastically embraced the death penalty.

Once again, the death penalty punishes a criminal. Abortion punishes an innocent child. There is a difference.


To the best of my knowlege this was Kerry's position on abortion. He said that life begins at conception but he doesn't want to infringe on a woman's life to privacy. So by the same logic if someone murders another person in their own home you can't convict them.

[perfessor]

1) He has dragged us into a preemptive war, a war of choice, when diplomatic efforts were still in process (but being actively undercut by the Bush administration). The war has cost, by some extimates, 100,000 lives. I am not arguing whether or not the results have justified the cost - only that the cost, in terms of human lives, has been very high.

I ask you, is it possible for someone to support WWII and be pro-life. You see, a terrorist isn't on the same moral plain as an innocent child. One is attempting to oust power by killing innocent civilians while the other merely longs to live.

Yes Titan, you have narrowed in on the crux of my argument. You see, there were people - Ghandi comes to mind - who opposed WW2 on purely pro-life grounds - that killing will never result in good. We may argue with this specific application of non-violence, but it represents to me a pure position.

There was another man who advised us - I'm paraphrasing here - that the old "eye for an eye" mentality was fruitless; that we should turn the other cheek to those who attack. This is a very difficult path to follow, and I don't pretend to follow it myself.

2) As governor of Texas, he enthusiastically embraced the death penalty.

Once again, the death penalty punishes a criminal. Abortion punishes an innocent child. There is a difference.

Yes, there is. But to my way of thinking, an honest pro-life position would not acknowledge it. That is, if you say, "That life has value, but this life does not," then this is not a pro-life position. It is something else.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.