Originally posted by Natural ScienceThe partial-birth abortion ban did include an exception for the life of the mother, but not the health of the mother. I don't think anybody who supported that legislation would expect a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if there was reason to believe it would kill her.
Just to clarify, he has stated that he would've voted for the ban on partial-birth abortion, if it included an exception to save the life or health of the mother. You cannot expect a woman to go through with a childbirth if doctors have told her it could kill her.
I should also point out that most of a woman's fertilized eggs are flushed out of ...[text shortened]... d. Does that mean any sexually active woman who's had more than one period is a serial killer?
3 edits
I agree with Kerry. Abortion should be left up to the woman; it's her body, not yours. Suppose your 13 year old daughter has been having sex and becomes pregnant. If she does have the baby, there's a possibility she could put her life in danger as well as the infants. Plus what is she going to do with a child? Raise it? er... not likely... and the same goes if you're a 20 year old woman, you're in school, you can't support the baby, and the father doesn't want the kid either. Growing up hungry or without parents isn't much of a life... Of course, she should have been on birth control (maybe she was; but the pill/patch isn't 100% effective). Maybe you should look at it from the womans point of view. She has to gain 30 pounds (which she later has to loose), give birth to the child (that can't be to comfortable), and then take time out of her schedule to care for the child (not to mention the bills that come along with it). I don't think I'd ever have an abortion, but I can understand why a woman would want one.
And why are you so concerned about that when people (not eggs) are being killed every day and murders are still not solved? Maybe we should focus on that first...
And I'd like to say that a woman shouldn't be expected to have a child if it could harm her health either. If she's sick, who's going to care for the child anyways?
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrHe has one position at home and another in public .... that's what some people call flip floppy .....
I thought that that flippity-floppiness was the tendency to change one's position. As far as I can tell, Kerry has consistently supported the legality of abortion. Kerry's view is principled, in that it derives from a liberalistic politic ...[text shortened]... with one subset of his beliefs, namely his political liberalism.
He also could state for instance he is against the death penalty, but he would never impose his views, his "articles of faith" on someone else ....... loool ...... 😀
Originally posted by Natural Science
Just to clarify, he has stated that he would've voted for the ban on partial-birth abortion, if it included an exception to save the life or health of the mother. You cannot expect a woman to go through with a childbirth if doctors have told her it could kill her.
I should also point out that most of a woman's fertilized eggs are flushed out of ...[text shortened]... d. Does that mean any sexually active woman who's had more than one period is a serial killer?
Come on, Kerry is a pro-choice person in every fibre of his smiling personality. He is a liberal. Those non-sense about not willing to impose his personal "articles of faith" is hypocritical. That's why he is a politician ... to try and build majorities to impose one's "articles of faith" on the other party. Anybody who declares otherwise is either a liar or a complete simpleton.
If you want to become the President of the United States you still have to be a religious person, whatever that means. That's why Kerry holds this private and public vision on abortion which are contradictory, flip-floppy and hypocritical.
What will his stance be if euthanasia becomes an urgent issue during his presidency ? That he opposes it but he will not oppose legislation to implement it ? What a loser !
Originally posted by ivanhoeHe wouldn't attempt to stop his daughters from having an abortion, because he thinks that a woman has the right to choose. So, it's not that he has a different position at home as in public. He doesn't think his "faith" licenses him to decide for women what they are allowed to do with their bodies. So, he puts his faith to the side when he makes decisions on public policy. Whatever inconsistency there is here involves the relationship between his political liberalism and his Catholicism, and not in his advocacy of public policy. Personally, I think he ought to give up Catholicism, and I'm sure many Catholics would agree.
He has one position at home and another in public .... that's what some people call flip floppy .....
I could state for instance I was against the death penalty, but I would never impose my views on someone else ....... loool ...... 😀
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo liberal would have voted for the PATRIOT Act. Kerry is certainly opportunistic, and a whore to corporate power (even though he talks tough about corporations), but I don't see his position on abortion as hypocritical. He has always distinguished between his own "faith" and his political liberalism. This position may be inconsistent with Catholic doctrine, but if so, that just makes Kerry a bad Catholic, not a hypocrite.
Come on, Kerry is a pro-choice person in every fibre of his smiling personality. He is a liberal. Those non-sense about not willing to impose his personal "articles of faith" is hypocritical. That's why he is a politician ... to try and build majorities to impose one's "articles of faith" on the other party. Anybody who declares otherwise is either ...[text shortened]... ncy ? That he opposes it but he will not oppose legislation to implement it ? What a loser !
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr: " Personally, I think he ought to give up Catholicism, and I'm sure many Catholics would agree.[/b]"
He wouldn't attempt to stop his daughters from having an abortion, because he thinks that a woman has the right to choose. So, it's not that he has a different position at home as in public. He doesn't think his "faith" licenses him to decide for women what they are allowed to do with their bodies. So, he puts his faith to the side when he makes decisi ...[text shortened]... Personally, I think he ought to give up Catholicism, and I'm sure many Catholics would agree.
... in my view he has done so a long long time ago. He only needs the religion because without it he cannot become the President of the United States. If he would openly state he is not a believer anymore he can forget the Presidency. Liberalism and Catholicism don't mix. It's like oil and water, but Kerry has found the recipe, the "mustard", to do the trick. It's called "Do the Flip Flop" .... or ... have it both ways.
Originally posted by bbarr
No liberal would have voted for the PATRIOT Act. Kerry is certainly opportunistic, and a whore to corporate power (even though he talks tough about corporations), but I don't see his position on abortion as hypocritical. He has always distinguished between his own "faith" and his political liberalism. This position may be inconsistent with Catholic doctrine, but if so, that just makes Kerry a bad Catholic, not a hypocrite.
Let's agree on the fact that inconsistency in his ideas is his strong point ..... 😉 😀
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat supreme arrogance!! How do you have the nerve to assume YOU know the personal faith of another human being? The entire essence of factual information you know could fit on the average postage stamp with room to spare!
Bbarr: " Personally, I think he ought to give up Catholicism, and I'm sure many Catholics would agree."
... in my view he has done so a long long time ago. He only needs the religion because without it he cannot become the President of the United States. If he would openly state he is not a believer anymore he can forget the Presidency. Liberalism ...[text shortened]... ustard", to do the trick. It's called "Do the Flip Flop" .... or ... have it both ways.
[/b]
And yeah being a Roman Catholic is a sure way to become President of the United States: there's been one RC president and he got shot!!!
Originally posted by bbarrUntil recently, I would have discouraged you from voting for Nader, but the more I see of the US election coverage, the more I hope for a viable 3rd (2nd?) party in the US - it would certainly make for more interesting television.
Fair enough. I'm voting for Nader, a consistent liberal! 😀
Originally posted by ivanhoeNoam Chomsky has claimed he will vote for Nader, because he lives in a state that is already Kerry's, a so-called "safe state". Chomsky doesn't advocate voting for Nader in battleground states, as the costs of a Bush election to the causes of peace, social justice and civil liberties will be too high.
Is it true that Noam Chomski withdrew his support for Nader ? Do you know why he did this ?
Originally posted by Remora91Abortion should NOT be used as a form of birth control, plain and simple...that is a heinous reason to get an abortion. If the "little girl" who got pregnant can't or won't raise the child, then give it up for adoption...maybe we should look at it from the unborn child's perspective...maybe he/she would choose to be adopted so as not to be a hinderance to the worthless biological parents. It ain't All about the mother....or father....
I agree with Kerry. Abortion should be left up to the woman; it's her body, not yours. Suppose your 13 year old daughter has been having sex and becomes pregnant. If she does have the baby, there's a possibility she could put her life in danger as well as the infants. Plus what is she going to do with a child? Raise it? er... not likely... and the same go ...[text shortened]... if it could harm her health either. If she's sick, who's going to care for the child anyways?