"See that child over there?
She belongs to the Government!
If her mother didn't want her to belong to the Government,
she could have killed her in the womb"
Posted on 07/05/2004 9:49:42 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
John Kerry may have "stepped in it" on the Fourth of July when he said more than he needed to say on the subject of abortion.
Kerry is the first prominent pro-abortion politician I can remember admitting that life begins at conception. In fact, I don't remember any pro-abortion person making that admission -- to himself, much less to the public.
People I've debated on the issue have generally taken the position that the baby in the womb is "potential life" or a clump of cells or a zygote. They seemed to sense that they would have no legitimate argument in favor of abortion if they admitted the baby was a life.
But as secular and humanistic influences have gained ascendance in our culture, I've anticipated the day when moral relativists would become so brazen as to discard their reliance on the argument that "the fetus is not a human life."
Indeed, with the breathtaking scientific and technological advances -- such as the discovery that a baby in the womb smiles and feels pain -- it's practically inevitable that the pro-aborts will be forced to abandon that argument.
In fact, one can detect from the militancy of pro-abortion radicals that to them, at least, the focus is not on what's inside the womb -- whether it's a baby or a potential life. It's all about power, the unfettered prerogative of women to do as they please, even if it means killing an innocent child inside their womb.
So it doesn't surprise me that someone in the pro-abortion camp finally admitted he supports the "right" to an abortion even if it means killing actual human beings in the process. It does surprise me, however, that that someone is Sen. John Kerry.
But you see, Kerry is in a bit of a pickle, considering his professed allegiance to the Catholic Church, which has consistently been one of the strongest institutional forces against abortion. Many Catholic bishops have stated that Kerry should not be allowed Communion because of his anti-life stance.
Perhaps Kerry thought he could cleverly thread the needle, simultaneously satisfying his Catholicism and his contradictory liberal theology, by saying he is personally opposed to abortion but that he doesn't believe he should impose his belief on others.
Kerry stated, "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."
But instead of threading the needle, the senator pricked himself with it and he's bleeding. If he genuinely believes we are dealing with life, it's difficult to understand how he would refuse to use the power of the state to protect that life. Unless, of course, he wants to go even further and concede he is a disciple of moral relativism -- a risky admission that might earn him further disfavor with the Catholic Church.
For if you acknowledge a fetus is a life, it's very difficult to justify killing it (with the possible exception of protecting the mother's life) without making a determination that the mother's convenience is so paramount that it must take precedence over an innocent life. That this notion is even "thinkable" is a staggering testament to the moral decline of our culture.
Sen. Kerry's argument that he is personally against abortion, but wouldn't legislate his views on others who disagree, is entirely specious.
In the first place, by refusing to display the courage to stand up against his pro-abortion constituents and defend the unborn, Kerry is essentially imposing his views on others -- the babies -- by default. And they are the only innocent ones in this equation.
Secondly, as I've said before, we do (and must) legislate morality. Our entire system of criminal law and much of our civil law is based on our moral beliefs, from assault and battery to murder in the first degree. If we don't "legislate morality," we forfeit the rule of law and ordered liberty altogether.
Thirdly, it is embarrassing that a person seeking the highest office in the land so misapprehends the constitutional concepts involved in church/state relations that he thinks they preclude the state from basing its laws on moral principles. He couldn't be more out of phase with America's founding fathers.
I suspect that John Kerry will come to regret his recent statement that though the baby is a life we must let them kill "it" anyway.
"Ecce Homo...!"
It's just his way.
"So it doesn't surprise me that someone in the pro-abortion camp finally admitted he supports the "right" to an abortion even if it means killing actual human beings in the process. It does surprise me, however, that that someone is Sen. John Kerry."
It doesn't surprise me. He killed little babies back in Vietnam too. (Along with all the other American soldiers. /sarcasm)
Abortion is domestic violence!
f'n's rationale for killing unborn babies was that due to "separation of church and state", he couldn't "impose his beliefs on Protestants or Jews". As usual, this attempt to be on all sides of every issue is completely irrational. If his argument were a viable one, he would have to apply it to other issues and people of other faiths. For instance, he would not be able to impose his views on radical islamists who believe in the "eye for an eye" adage, therefor he would have to pass legislation that allows people to chop each others hands off, or poke each other's eyes out. Also, he would have to vote to allow people to marry multiple partners, after all, who is he to tell them they can't? And let's not forget stealing, heck, if we don't listen to God's commandment "Thou shalt not steal", what reason do we have not to? Why not have a new law that says if I want it, and I saw it first, its mine. Or if I'm bigger and stronger than you, and I can take it from you, its mine.
Obviously, any civilized society's laws are based on the Big Ten given to us by God's own Hand. "Thou shalt not kill" is way near the top of the list, right after the ones about honoring, and not mocking, our Creator. If that feckless, flipflopping, disingenuous, metrosexual dandy really believed that unborn babies are babies, he would be obligated by conscience to vote to protect their unstained and innocent lives from senseless murder. And if he doesn't have a conscience, then he needs to be under the care of a psychological professional immediately, because that would mean he is a sociopath. (See description here http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/socio.htm - notice parallels to f'n's behaviors, at least those we have been privvy to hearing about.) Either way, his defense of his record holds no water, particularly his vote ****against**** the Laci and Connor's Law (Unborn Victims of Violence Act, I believe is the official name.) In that case, he voted to protect a felonious criminal's "right to choose", should he choose to kill a pregnant woman and her baby.
Give me a break! I think if jfk ever actually spoke the truth, his considerably large head would explode. He sickens me.
"Peace on Earth" begins within. Stop Abortion.
Its a given some things are always wrong because they have always been wrong. There are other things that are wrong cause the state says there are wrong. Murder and rape are example of the former and gambling and illegal drugs belong in the latter. Abortion is somewhere in between. The fact an abortion may be a necessary evil at times doesn't always make it right. Does John F*ckin' grasp the distinction? If he doesn't, he's not fit to become our next President.
As I said in another thread, Al Qaeda was practicing its religion on 9/11, so according to Kerry's "logic," if as president he goes after AQ, he will be violating the separation of church and state.
Live and let li... er, live and let kill?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.