[slow moe]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

...

But even as he tried to avoid making news Sunday, Kerry broke new ground in an interview that ran in the Dubuque, Iowa, Telegraph Herald. A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat 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."

Spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said that although Kerry has often said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," and that his religion shapes that view, she could not recall him ever publicly discussing when life begins.

"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued in the interview. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America." The comments came on the final day of a three-state Midwest swing, during which Kerry has repeatedly sought to dispel stereotypes that could play negatively among voters there.

President Bush's campaign said these instances are further evidence of what it says is Kerry's propensity for misleading flip-flops.

...

Afterward, several parishioners asked him about his position on abortion and his vote against a recent bill that would have banned the late-term procedure opponents call "partial birth" abortion, according to a reporter for the Telegraph Herald who sat behind Kerry's pew. Kerry replied that he would have supported the ban if it had included an exception for the health of the mother.

...

[djohnson]

Interesting... So now both candidates oppose abortion. Good for them

[phoenixboy70]

that's not the point. the question is whether it's "legal" or not...

[chabig]

Well, if you believe that life begins at conception, and you support legal abortion, then you are also supporting legal murder. Are you not?

Chris

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by chabig:
Well, if you believe that life begins at conception, and you support legal abortion, then you are also supporting legal murder. Are you not?

true.

that's why i think it's not a very good definition.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by chabig:
Well, if you believe that life begins at conception, and you support legal abortion, then you are also supporting legal murder. Are you not?

Chris

No, because there are situations in which taking life might not be murder.

I basically agree with Kerry's position, and I'm not just saying that because he said it now. I've always said that the discussion over when life begins is not determinative here. Life can begin at conception, but you're still left answering: 1) when does that life have legal rights (i.e., personhood) and 2) does the presence of life mean the gov't can deny reproductive rights?

[badidea]

Originally posted by chabig:
Well, if you believe that life begins at conception, and you support legal abortion, then you are also supporting legal murder. Are you not?

Chris

Didn't Bush support the death penalty while being Governor of Texas??
He supported 152 legal murders then...

[djohnson]

Originally posted by badidea:
Didn't Bush support the death penalty while being Governor of Texas??
He supported 152 legal murders then...

So now you are saying that a poor baby that hasnt even been born yet is the same as a criminal deserving the death penalty?

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by djohnson:
So now you are saying that a poor baby that hasnt even been born yet is the same as a criminal deserving the death penalty?

/completely predictable reply

[djohnson]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
/completely predictable reply

^
|
|

Completely pointless post.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by djohnson:
So now you are saying that a poor baby that hasnt even been born yet is the same as a criminal deserving the death penalty?

But the standard that was invoked above was that life begins at conception and any taking of life is therefore murder and wrong. It sounds like an absolute principle. But perhaps there could be exceptions. For you, an exception might be if the person is (believed to be) guilty of a crime. For me, an exception should be if the alternative is the gov't forcing women to give birth. I suppose it just depends on your values.

[badidea]

Originally posted by djohnson:
So now you are saying that a poor baby that hasnt even been born yet is the same as a criminal deserving the death penalty?

No, I was saying:

'Didn't Bush support the death penalty while being Governor of Texas??
He supported 152 legal murders then...'

[slow moe]

"Someone in Washington tried to move this country way way way to the right." - Bill Clinton

A Massachusetts liberal says life begins at conception, AND opts for a NRA style "look at me, I like guns too" photo shoot this weekend. Oh no!

The Massachusetts liberal is taking his campaign to new heights folks, new heights indeed. Just look at all those Bush supporters deserting into the Massachusetts liberal's camp. Look at'em go!

Where's the eject button because I am in full panic mode.

[vmpaul]

He's also going to have to square this with his position in favor of stem cell research.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by chabig:
Well, if you believe that life begins at conception, and you support legal abortion, then you are also supporting legal murder. Are you not?

Chris

What Kerry is saying is that while he believes life begins at conception, he also believes that others have the right to believe otherwise.

[Xeo]

Sounds to me like Kerry is doing more of the "say whatever you can to sound good to both sides so I can get elected" ********. I'm tired of it already. If he gets elected, I hope he actually goes with a direction, whichever it maybe, or he won't get anything done.

However, actually supporting separation of church and state is a good thing. I really don't want my government to be lead by a mythical being like it is now.

[chabig]

What Kerry is saying is that while he believes life begins at conception, he also believes that others have the right to believe otherwise.

Well if Kerry personally believes that life begins at conception, but is willing to let others make up their own minds, then he is a man who lacks conviction and should not be President of the United States. You could make an argument that the executives at Enron and Tyco had the right to believe that fraud is legal too, but that doesn't buy them a pass. They are being held accountable to society's standards, as they should. It seems that Kerry just doesn't have any standards that he is willing to impose on others. He'll say anything to avoid offending anyone who might vote for him.

Chris

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by chabig:
He'll say anything to avoid offending anyone who might vote for him.

i agree. that's just awful. politics i guess.

nevertheless, leaders should have convictions (rational ones, of course ). somebody should stand up and say "ladies and gentlemen, it is up to a woman to decide what happens to her body. anybody opposing, just STFU. and no, we're not going to outlaw masturbation, because we believe "all life is sacred". thank you."

[phoenixboy70]

just a quick question. how many who post here actually know women who have had abortions?

[Spliffdaddy]

I married one.

I know several others.

Ain't many women who are proud of it. Which tells you all you need to know.

[saab95]

Kerry does not want you to think he's a liberal.

Kerry does not want you to think he's against toting guns.

Now, Kerry does not want you to think he's for a woman's right to choose.

Flip flop flip flop flip flop.........

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by chabig:
Well if Kerry personally believes that life begins at conception, but is willing to let others make up their own minds, then he is a man who lacks conviction and should not be President of the United States.

Or, he's a man who has conviction in the belief of the separation of church from state.

[Zimphire]

He's a walking contradiction.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Or, he's a man who has conviction in the belief of the separation of church from state.

What about the people who are against abortions that aren't religious?

While abortion has religious people against it. Not everyone that is, is religious.

I know quite a few non-religious people that are against abortions for logical reasons.

They usually are against the Death Penalty for logical reasons as well.

[itai195]

They're calling it a flip-flop because he voted against banning late term abortions? The health exception actually was a pretty major reason to vote against it...

This is a spin job, his opinion isn't that different from a lot of Democrats. And *gasp* yes there are liberals who like guns (see Michael Moore, Howard Dean).

[BRussell]

Has politics been dumbed down so much that people can't have even the slightest amount of complexity in their positions? Are they supposed to be able to convey their entire political philosophy in a grunt? There's nothing at all wrong with saying one is opposed to abortion personally but support keeping it legal.

I don't think anyone likes abortions. They're awful. But you want to keep them safe and legal. That's the essence of the pro-choice position. Bill Clinton said he wanted them to be safe, legal, and rare.

I think this Kerry statement may also be designed to deal with his "Catholic problem." Some theo-cons are trying to force Kerry into essentially renouncing his religion or being declared a heretic. If he makes it clear that he personally supports the Catholic position, while maintaining a different public-policy position, he deals with the issue effectively, because he shows he's a true Catholic who believes in a Kennedy-like Church-state separation.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by chabig:
Well if Kerry personally believes that life begins at conception, but is willing to let others make up their own minds, then he is a man who lacks conviction and should not be President of the United States.
[...]
Chris

So, because he doesn't think that everyone should think the same way he does means he shouldn't be president? I think you have this issue precisely backward on both counts.

First, I'd bet that he has conviction on this because he is risking a lot of flak from groups like NOW over the whole issue. If he had no conviction he would have just toed the party line to keep an important part of his base's mouth shut. Much like George Bush does (whether his toeing the line is honest or not, I'll not venture a guess).

Second, you can be completely convinced that you are right, and still be pragmatic about letting other people hold their own beliefs on the matter. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," comes to mind. After all, other people can be completely convinced they are right, and be just as willing to not "show you the light."

So, in short, what he seems to lack is the, "You must agree with me, or you're...." instinct that Bush and so many others seem to have in spades. This is precisely a quality you want in a leader of a large and diverse nation.

BlackGriffen

Edit: improve punctuation.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by BRussell:
No, because there are situations in which taking life might not be murder.

Murder is legally defined as the unlawful taking of another life. Since executions and abortion are legal, therefore, they cannot be considered murder.

My own personal definition would be more concise in that malice and/or intent to kill would have to take place in order for the act to be considered murder.

What matters ultimately to me is whether there's justification or not. The only three exceptions that come to mind are:

[A] Self-defense;
[B] War;
[C] Death penalty.

All three would still be murder to me, however, there would be some justification in those three circumstances according to the situation.

[nonhuman]

This is not news. I believe that life begins and conception and I support legal abortion as well. There's no contradiction here, only an acknowledgement that the function of the government and the boundaries of the law are such that morality is not and should not be the same as legality.

[slow moe]

[Monique]

Sustainable life does not start at conception; if the one inch embryo can live outside my body and I would kill it then it would be murder since it cannot...

I think like most men he would like this issue to go away since it is none of his business but the business of women.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He's a walking contradiction.

I don't see a contradiction from having a belief and not pushing that belief on the majority or on the supreme court.

I myself have tossed this issue around many times in my brain. I once met a girl who had three abortions. She seemed to think it was just another option for birth control. It made me sick and one reason I can't make a black or white decision on it to this day. But I still believe it's not my call but a choice a woman must decide. I believe for most...that decision does not come too easily.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
I don't see a contradiction from having a belief and not pushing that belief on the majority or on the supreme court.

It was none of the Supreme Court's business to start with.

[chabig]

Originally posted by Monique:
Sustainable life does not start at conception; if the one inch embryo can live outside my body and I would kill it then it would be murder since it cannot...

But a one day old baby cannot sustain itself either...

From the moment the egg is fertilized, a life exists separate and distinct from the mother. Yet it is dependent upon the mother. This is the conflict--should the mother be allowed to kill the life for her own convenience, or is there a quality of life that demands respect and protection?

Chris

Edited for spelling.

[itai195]

Okay lets not turn this into another abortion debate, that's not what the topic is about. This doesn't appear to be a flip-flop, despite the insistence of some members.

[undotwa]

The thing is, the seperation of church of state wasn't about seperating moral principles of Churches or religious organisations from the state. If the state deems that these principles are worthwhile being laws then of course they will adopt them.

No, the seperation of church and state was about the state not being associated with any particular church, like England is with the Anglican church or like Denmark with the Danish Lutheran church or Italy with the Roman Catholic Church.

[slow moe]

You can debate separating religious morals from government law if you want, but my problem with Kerry's stance is this. He now says he believes life begins at conception. Ok, that's a pro-life POV, but he voted against the bill that would ban late-term abortion because he said it didn't included an exception for the health of the mother. Ok, my problem is just who is going to make this exception... the decision that decides that this mother can have an abortion, but this one can't based on her health situation?

That kind of mentality, my friend, is Hitlerian and ultimately leads to eugenics.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by slow moe:
You can debate separating religious morals from government law if you want, but my problem with Kerry's stance is this. He now says he believes life begins at conception. Ok, that's a pro-life POV, but he voted against the bill that would ban late-term abortion because he said it didn't included an exception for the health of the mother. Ok, my problem is just who is going to make this exception... the decision that decides that this mother can have an abortion, but this one can't based on her health situation?

That kind of mentality, my friend, is Hitlerian and ultimately leads to eugenics.

Clinton refused to sign the bill unless congress included a health exception; they didn't, they included a "life of the mother" exception. Then Bush signed the bill with the "life" exception. The physician decides that, just like the physician would decide if the mother's health was at stake. It's not that complex, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with Hitler.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Clinton refused to sign the bill unless congress included a health exception; they didn't, they included a "life of the mother" exception. Then Bush signed the bill with the "life" exception. The physician decides that, just like the physician would decide if the mother's health was at stake. It's not that complex, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with Hitler.

Let me repeat this one more time.

KERRY, not Clinton, not Bush, KERRY said he voted against the bill because it didn't include a health exception, not a life of the mother expection, a health exception.

[BRussell]

The reason I brought up Clinton is to show that this wasn't some bizarre or unique Kerry position. We went through the debate over the different exceptions several times in the 90s under Clinton, and Kerry's position appears identical to Clinton's, as well as most other Democrats who voted against that bill. This debate over exceptions is central to the abortion debate, and it has nothing to do with Hitler.

[slow moe]

Hitler's euthanasia initiative killed based on how someone perceived a health condition. If a physician perceived you as mentally ill, you were killed. Didn't matter if you were or not. If that's how you were perceived to be, then you were killed. That sounds an awful like someone perceiving Cindy as being to sick to have her baby, and so is told it would be best if she had an abortion. Meanwhile Susan, who has the same health condition as Cindy but lives in different state, is perceived to be just fine and has her baby. Now you go explain to Cindy about how a health exception has nothing to with Hitlerianism or eugenics.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I married one.

I know several others.

Ain't many women who are proud of it. Which tells you all you need to know.

exactly. that is to say that gov. should NOT regulate what women can or can't do to their body. NOBODY takes these things lightly and it's not what most conservatives claim women use it as (a substitute for abstaining or being responsible).

that's why i don't think it's ever going to be illegal again. what is far more important is that abortions are safe and affordable. because you know what, just like sex, people are going to have abortions, legal or not. and as long as that's the case, i think we would do better, to simply see to to it that they can be done in a clean and controlled environment.

every woman and girl i know would MUCH rather keep a child than have an abortion. but sometimes things go wrong.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by chabig:

From the moment the egg is fertilized, a life exists separate and distinct from the mother.

nope. learn some biology. the line is still very VERY blurry.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by undotwa:
The thing is, the seperation of church of state wasn't about seperating moral principles of Churches or religious organisations from the state. If the state deems that these principles are worthwhile being laws then of course they will adopt them.

yes, but the state is only there to reflect what "we, the people..." believe. it's "democracy"...not "theocracy", remember?

[undotwa]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
yes, but the state is only there to reflect what "we, the people..." believe. it's "democracy"...not "theocracy", remember?

Huh? What's your point? How does that rebut against my post?

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Huh? What's your point? How does that rebut against my post?

you were putting a little bit too much emphasis on "the govt.", imho.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by itai195:
Okay lets not turn this into another abortion debate, that's not what the topic is about. This doesn't appear to be a flip-flop, despite the insistence of some members.

Agreed.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
Okay lets not turn this into another abortion debate, that's not what the topic is about. This doesn't appear to be a flip-flop, despite the insistence of some members.

No, it's not flip-flopping. Even flip-flopping involves taking a stand, even if it is only temporarily. This seems to be trying to have an issue both ways despite the ludicrous inconsistency. That seems to be a Kerry hallmark, viz: I voted against the bill before I voted for it.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by chabig:
Well if Kerry personally believes that life begins at conception, but is willing to let others make up their own minds, then he is a man who lacks conviction and should not be President of the United States. You could make an argument that the executives at Enron and Tyco had the right to believe that fraud is legal too, but that doesn't buy them a pass. They are being held accountable to society's standards, as they should. It seems that Kerry just doesn't have any standards that he is willing to impose on others. He'll say anything to avoid offending anyone who might vote for him.

Chris

"It seems that Kerry just doesn't have any standards that he is willing to impose on others."
I didn't think being a President gave you a free pass to impose one's own standard's on the populace.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
yes, but the state is only there to reflect what "we, the people..." believe. it's "democracy"...not "theocracy", remember?

Actually we're a representative republic.