Toggle sidebar

Kerry supports abortion rights

T

tide69

3rd Team
Oct 27, 1999
270
3
0
Kerry has scheduled a rally today with leaders of women's groups to compare his position on abortion with what he say's are "Bush's extreme anti-abortion positions".

Bush approves of abortion in the following instances:
1.rape
2.incest
3.when pregnancy endangers a pregnant woman's life.
Excuse me but do these positions seem "extreme" to anyone?They're certainly not to me but they are to Kerry.

Can anyone out there who is catholic explain to me how or why Kerry could remain in the catholic church and support an infant's murder?

Isn't abortion considered a major sin by catholics?
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by tide69:
Kerry has scheduled a rally today with leaders of women's groups to compare his position on abortion with what he say's are "Bush's extreme anti-abortion positions".

Bush approves of abortion in the following instances:
1.rape
2.incest
3.when pregnancy endangers a pregnant woman's life.
Excuse me but do these positions seem "extreme" to anyone? They're certainly not to me but they are to Kerry.</font>
Click to expand...

Bush's position is extreme when compared to the law of the land.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Can anyone out there who is catholic explain to me how or why Kerry could remain in the catholic church and support an infant's murder?</font>
Click to expand...

Two ways of looking at this:

1. Many people remain in the Catholic Church who do not agree with all of its rules. For example, Catholicism forbids *any* form of contraception.

2. Canon law and secular law are not interchangeable.

------------------
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying." --Woody Allen
 
I'm not a Catholic and I don't play one on TV. I'm also NOT a Catholic basher. My sister converted a few years ago, so I sincerely hope that nobody will take what I say as being 'anti-Catholic.'

1.The Catholic Church opposes all use of 'artificial birth control.'

2. It opposes abortion, too - to the best of my knowledge, they are never in favor of it (but if I'm wrong, sorry folks).

3. Kerry didn't even go to church for years until he decided to run for Prez. That bothers me a LOT more than his position on abortion.

I will say up front that I qualify as pro-life. At the same time, I abhor people who kill abortion doctors in the name of God. It seems to me that there are two 'extreme' positions on abortion.

1. Never, ever, ever, never, ever legal under ANY circumstances.

2. ALWAYS legal until the child comes out (and some even think it should be okay for like six weeks afterward - granted, none of them that I know holds office)

Neither Bush nor Kerry holds either position, so I find it hard to call either one 'extreme.'Extremist is an inflammatory term used by activists to paint straw men of the other position.

Here's the basic position of Americans.

1. Abortion should be legal for the first 3 months.

2. A majority defines themselves as 'pro-choice.'

3. A majority of the country considers abortion 'murder.'

These have not changed at all since Roe v. Wade in 1973.

Kerry is having to play to the radical Left on this one. Typical Democrat, too:

1. has to be for gay rights
2. has to favor unlimited abortion
3. has to favor gun control
4. has to oppose the death penalty

Clinton won because he was for #1 and #2, hid his position on #3 (then came out for the Brady Bill), and the Left let him slide on #4 because they hadn't been in power in 12 years. Carter didn't talk about #1, wanted limits on #2, and opposed #3 and took no position on #4. But Carter was the one exception since 1968 and the Left takeover of the Democratic Party. He only got the nomination because the liberals (Harris, Udall, Church,and Bayh) split the vote.

This appearance is going to play right into the "he's a liberal" hands of Rove, Bush, et al. He ought to do the John McCain in reverse: "I'm pro-choice, but both sides have used the issue in a shamelessly political way."

As far as being Catholic, I have the 1984 debate where Ferraro stated that her priest told her her 'I personally oppose abortion' position was 'not good enough.' She was Catholic and had questions about squaring it with her faith.

I suspect it's no problem for Kerry. As I said earlier, the guy didn't go to church until the campaign started.
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by tide69:
Can anyone out there who is catholic explain to me how or why Kerry could remain in the catholic church and support an infant's murder?

Isn't abortion considered a major sin by catholics?


</font>
Click to expand...

1) He is not an official representative of the Holy Church.

2) Hate the sin, but love the sinner.

3) The Holy Church has enough problems than to worry about who "calls" themself "catholic".

4) Kerry is a phony and this is a ploy only to present himself as the next Kennedy. Remember, Kennedy's are Catholic and the "world" was up in arms at the largest Religion having an "influence" on the most powerful office in the land.
 
Two pieces of legislation that have been passed while Bush has been president are:
1.Partial birth abortion has been made illegal.This barbaric practice that all the liberals were for and had been used to kill thousands of babies consists of the doctor going in with his hands,guiding the baby's head up through the birth canal,and sticking a scalpel or scissors into the base of the brain.

How could anyone not consider that murder?

2.it's a crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a mother-to-be(as in the Peterson case).
Of course the liberals were frothing at the mouth when this piece of legislation was passed because this law recognizes the fetus as a living person with all the rights due to such.

So we are making progress in protecting our children.This progress could be in jeopardy if Kerry should be elected president.

Kerry feels that "abortion rights" would be jeopardized by the expected openings on the Supreme Court if Bush is allowed to nominate justices to fill those openings.

Kerry has been quoted as saying that,"he would nominate only Supreme Court Justices who support his position on abortion rights".
 
Fosterkeats,

Arguments like yours are all rhetoric and no substance.

Again, hiding behind the words like 'choice.'

Okay, I CHOOSE to kill my kid. Is it legal? No. Who says so? And how do they make that decision?

Here's the basic problem with the pro-choice/pro-abortion crowd:

If I hit my wife when she's pregnant and she loses the baby, I'm a murderer. But if she goes to a doctor and he liquidates it, it's legal.

Now, Fosterkeats, I've always been told that the Dems cared for the little guy and the GOP only about the rich. And this issue is why I've never bought it. Who among us is more innocent than the unborn child?

But I can tell you why the Dems vote the way they do. Don't give me it's a right to choose because the same people who say that don't give me the right (or want to change the right) of myself and others to own a handgun.

It's simple: Democrats know how to count (and recount and recount) votes. And women who have abortions vote; unborn children don't.

THAT'S why most of them favor it.

Now, there are libertarians in our society who are at least consistent and say, 'Abortion is okay and so is owning a gun.' But Kerry doesn't qualify, so in regards to him that is a moot point.

I accept that the law tells us abortion is legal. Of course, some people forget that Prohibition and slavery were once legal, too. I will never change anyone's mind about abortion by calling them a killer or whatever, even if I think that's what they're doing (anymore than you change someone's mind on affirmative action by calling them a racist or a bigot). But I'm getting away from the subject at hand.

One poster correctly noted that Kerry is not a spokesperson for the RCC, and he isn't. In fact, he's only 'found religion' since deciding to run for Prez - probably hoping to cut into Bush's massive lead among Christians. I think it was "World" magazine that profiled the religions of all the candidates last fall and Kerry was given the lowest marks because it was clear he was religious 'in name only.' This was LONG before Howard Dean did his impersonation of Jim Carrey on steroids, so you can't just argue that, either. Dean actually got good marks for his consistency as did Liebermann.

Kerry is staking out the most liberal position on abortion possible. In the process, I guess he thinks the rest of us are going to forget about the Iraq war, terrorism, and the economy. Look for him to play the 'wronged' party and blame Bush for the RCC denying him communion.

So far, the only thing he hasn't blamed on George W Bush is his hairdo.
 
do you know how much condoms costed back in my day?

hmmm?

me neither... i never used the darn things.
lol.gif
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fosterkeats:
Great for him...

But it is still the CHOICE of the woman, not the decisions of a bunch of old men in Washington...

</font>
Click to expand...

I bet it gives you a big thrill each time a woman kills her unborn. You are an example of EVERYTHING that is wrong in America.
 
I'm working on a test that can detect if an unborn living HUMAN baby will grow up to be a liberal. Nothing fancy, just an I.Q. test for the parents. If they both score less than 10, then there is a 100% chance the unborn living HUMAN baby will be a liberal.
I think that in this case I can agree that abortion is warranted.
Do you think this is mean? Well I do too? But it does not compare to the KILLING of AN UNBORN LIVING HUMAN BABY! If libs arose tomorrow with a whole new outlook on life and adopted all the correct views except this one, my opinion of them would be unchanged. And I thought the libs were the party that looked after the less fortunate. You know what it comes down to? The UNBORN LIVING HUMAN BABY can't vote. So the libs don't need them. SAD!

------------------
-FarRight
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BamaJeff:
I bet it gives you a big thrill each time a woman kills her unborn. You are an example of EVERYTHING that is wrong in America.
</font>
Click to expand...

Actually, Jeff, what's wrong with America right now is that too many people like you view issues purely in right/wrong, black/white modes.

Too many people on this board take the position of "all liberals [or, to be more accurate, all non-conservatives] think this way about this issue."

But even though some would prefer to think otherwise, life's choices aren't always that neat.

Let me offer an example.

About fourteen years ago, two of my best friends had a baby. Shortly after birth the girl was diagnosed with an incurable genetic defect. The prognosis was 100% fatal.

Let me repeat that. 100% fatal. No chance that the baby would survive more than a few months.

For the next three months, they had to watch their baby die.

A year later, they got pregnant again. Because the syndrome that killed their first child was hereditary, after the first trimester, they tested the fetus for the defect. They steeled themselves for a choice they prayed they wouldn't have to make.

Fortuantely, the test came back negative, and Sean is a wonderful little boy.

But if it had come back positive, no feeling person could condemn them if they chose to terminate the pregnancy.

It's nice to stand up and say that abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother. You can point to the concession and pat yourself on the back for your compassion.

But that fact is that life will not be contained that neatly. There are situations that do not fall into that narrowly proscribed areas in which abortion, though a tragic choice, may yet be a valid choice.



------------------
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying." --Woody Allen
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jthomas666:
But that fact is that life will not be contained that neatly. There are situations that do not fall into that narrowly proscribed areas in which abortion, though a tragic choice, may yet be a valid choice.

</font>
Click to expand...

Yep, and YOUR own example proves that EVERY life should be given a chance!
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by selmaborntidefan:
Fosterkeats,

Arguments like yours are all rhetoric and no substance.

Again, hiding behind the words like 'choice.'

Okay, I CHOOSE to kill my kid. Is it legal? No. Who says so? And how do they make that decision?

Here's the basic problem with the pro-choice/pro-abortion crowd:

If I hit my wife when she's pregnant and she loses the baby, I'm a murderer. But if she goes to a doctor and he liquidates it, it's legal.

Now, Fosterkeats, I've always been told that the Dems cared for the little guy and the GOP only about the rich. And this issue is why I've never bought it. Who among us is more innocent than the unborn child?

But I can tell you why the Dems vote the way they do. Don't give me it's a right to choose because the same people who say that don't give me the right (or want to change the right) of myself and others to own a handgun.

It's simple: Democrats know how to count (and recount and recount) votes. And women who have abortions vote; unborn children don't.

THAT'S why most of them favor it.

Now, there are libertarians in our society who are at least consistent and say, 'Abortion is okay and so is owning a gun.' But Kerry doesn't qualify, so in regards to him that is a moot point.

I accept that the law tells us abortion is legal. Of course, some people forget that Prohibition and slavery were once legal, too. I will never change anyone's mind about abortion by calling them a killer or whatever, even if I think that's what they're doing (anymore than you change someone's mind on affirmative action by calling them a racist or a bigot). But I'm getting away from the subject at hand.

One poster correctly noted that Kerry is not a spokesperson for the RCC, and he isn't. In fact, he's only 'found religion' since deciding to run for Prez - probably hoping to cut into Bush's massive lead among Christians. I think it was "World" magazine that profiled the religions of all the candidates last fall and Kerry was given the lowest marks because it was clear he was religious 'in name only.' This was LONG before Howard Dean did his impersonation of Jim Carrey on steroids, so you can't just argue that, either. Dean actually got good marks for his consistency as did Liebermann.

Kerry is staking out the most liberal position on abortion possible. In the process, I guess he thinks the rest of us are going to forget about the Iraq war, terrorism, and the economy. Look for him to play the 'wronged' party and blame Bush for the RCC denying him communion.

So far, the only thing he hasn't blamed on George W Bush is his hairdo.

</font>
Click to expand...


So this is the ###th time you have cut and pasted your feelings on this subject...

Quit rolling this in with other issues, they are not the same...

Choice is the issue, and the last time I checked, the WOMAN, not the MAN, was the one who makes the decision... so stop your preaching and move along...
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BamaJeff:
I bet it gives you a big thrill each time a woman kills her unborn. You are an example of EVERYTHING that is wrong in America.

</font>
Click to expand...

Sure, I get off on it... there are you happy now???

Too bad the "Ignorant Post" filter is off line, or you would never get to say anything in here...
 
Fosterkeats,

Still unable to argue RATIONALLY?

Not a big surprise, I'm sure you saw the brain scans of people being done at that university showing that conservatives think with their head and liberals with their emotions (like I needed a study to tell me that).

Okay, let's deal with your erroneous accusations one at a time.

First you assert:

So this is the ###th time you have cut and pasted your feelings on this subject...

Quit rolling this in with other issues, they are not the same...


Rebuttal:

In the first place, I've not cut and pasted ANYTHING on this board without providing a link. No, I type pretty fast and I think even faster. It comes natural to some of us.

As far as the issue, the issue of the post is whether or not Kerry supports abortion rights and why and whether or not the RCC should deny him communion.

Yes, I propose gun control because it PROVES your hypocrisy. Why? Well, it's very simple: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS EXPLICITLY PROTECTED IN THE CONSTITUTION; abortion is nowhere hinted at, mentioned, or thought of.

Now, that does NOT mean that abortion may not be protected by the Constitution; it's what the 'unenumerated rights' are, and the 1973 SC decided that the founders REALLY meant abortion.

But it DOES answer your argument very clearly. The thrust of the argument - at least the one you are presenting - is, "It's the choice of the woman and nobody else."

Well, I guess if you live in a vacuum, that might be true. The problem is that women do not get pregnant by themselves. The last time I looked, it took a sperm cell that women do not produce. Let's flip the argument: a woman has a child with a man and leaves him and sues for child support. According to most laws she gets it. Why? Because it takes two to tango.

Does it not take two to tango anyway?

Further, the argument is internally inconsistent. One of my favorite is these: "Men have no business deciding about abortion" (which is hypocritical to say the least since all nine SC judges in 1973 were male - but that's an inconvenient FACT that people who use such logic overlook).

And then there's the appeal to sob stories that both sides use. Someone posted about a baby problem - and this is where the so-called exceptions rule comes in. Allow an analogy.

A person is stopped by the cops doing 110 in a 70 mph zone. When the cop gets to the car, he notices a baby who has turned blue due to choking in the back. Is the officer going to ticket the lady? Probably not.

Does that mean, however, that 110 should now be the speed limit for EVRYONE? Of course not. But that's precisely the logic that says, "Well since there are exceptions, all exceptions are EQUAL."

I reiterate: it's not an argument of individual choice because you are not just affecting the woman. You are affecting the unborn child (who, of course, has no rights unless his name is Cody Peterson and his mom is named Laci) as well as the father.

One friend of mine (who has since crossed over Jordan) was sort of pro-life. His position was essentially the same as mine, that government ought not be involved and it shouldn't be a political issue.

I agree.

But let's not forget that it became a political issue when the SC struck down ALL laws (which was their right) and then MADE THEIR OWN RULES UP AS THEY WENT and imposed them on the rest of us.

It was, therefore, the Left that made it a political issue.
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by NOSty:
Yep, and YOUR own example proves that EVERY life should be given a chance!</font>
Click to expand...

???
Please explain your reasoning here. My argument is as follows: When a child has defects such that survival is impossible (not unlikely, not improbably--IMPOSSIBLE), then abortion should be an option.

Your statement strongly suggests that you didn't read my post fully. At the very least, you ignored my point.

Read the example again. The nature of the defect was such that there was NO CHANCE for survival. Are you actually arguing that

1. The parents should be forced to watch their child slowly die, and
2. That the child should be condemned to a slow, painful death?

Is this really what you are advocating?

------------------
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying." --Woody Allen

[This message has been edited by jthomas666 (edited 04-25-2004).]
 
the only abortion i think is right is when the baby is dead inside the womb. my best friend lost one like that due to spinal differeah(sp?) but the state insurance for pregnant women(medicaid/or medicare i cant remember which) turned the bill down because they considered it an abortion. there is NO WAY the child could have survived in ANY situation. i can understand that but dont really consider it an abortion. i lost a kid to an abortion because the girl 'didnt' want it but i did. that gave her more reason to kill and she had the nerve to tell me i had to pay(yea right). i didnt pay to kill my child and i never will. it should be and 'couples' decision not just the womans. i respect bush's opinion on abortions. screw kerry and all the democrats.

------------------
rip zach culpepper(1980-1998) well miss u #42
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back