John Kerry Sidesteps Abortion Comment, Says Unborn a "Form of Life"

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is further distancing himself from comments he made last month that human life begins at conception.

In an interview with the Associated Press on Friday, Kerry reiterated his support for the so-called right to abortion, but seemingly changed his position on the beginning of life.

Asked whether he thought abortion constituted the taking of human life, Kerry said that an unborn child is a "form of life.''

"The Bible itself - I mean, everything talks about different layers of development," Kerry said. "That's what Roe v Wade does. It talks about viability. It's the law of the land.''

"John Kerry's statement that a fetus is potential life is scientific nonsense," Nikolas Nikas, an attorney with Americans United for Life, told LifeNews.com. "A fetus is a human being at the fetal stage of life. It is not potential life, but human life with potential. Check any medical textbook."

Nikas also took issue with Kerry's view of the Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion.

"[H]is view that, since abortion on demand is mandated by the Supreme Court, it cannot be challenged flies in the face of American history," Nikas explained. "The Supreme Court once held that slaves were property. Should we accept that African Americans are property because the Court once held that?"

In his Friday interview, Kerry, once again, said he could not put his Catholic views on abortion into policy.

"I don't believe personally that it's the government's job to step in and take my article of faith and transfer it to somebody who doesn't share that article of faith,'' said Kerry.

While campaigning in a heavily Catholic part of Iowa in early July, Kerry told the Dubuque Telegraph Herald, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

Kerry also backed away from those comments in an interview with ABC news anchor Peter Jennings late last month.

Kerry said he thought the "fertilization process" is when a human being "is first formed and created." However, Kerry added, "[w]ithin weeks, you look and see the development of it, but that's not a person yet, and it's certainly not what somebody, in my judgment, ought to have the government of the United States intervening in."

The contradictory statements, designed to keep his pro-abortion supporters and mollify voters who back him on other issues but have qualms with his abortion position, reveal Kerry's nature as a flip-flopper, pro-life advocates say.

"Senator Kerry now claims that he believes that 'a human being is first formed and created' at fertilization, but for 20 years he has consistently voted against any legal protection for those human beings," says Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

"When it comes to abortion, John Kerry's views are on the wrong side of science, the wrong side of history, and the wrong side of morality," Nikas concluded.

""That's what Roe v Wade does... It's the law of the land.'' "

The guy in the article effectively shoots down this garbage reasoning, but this will be a common refrain from the left once again in the near future on another hot-button, contentious social issue.

That issue is of course gay marriage. The similarities are striking. First -- as with abortion -- Kerry claims to be personally against gay marriage (but for civil unions), but that he can't let his personal views influence policy; which translates into the belief being meaningless. Though to be fair, on gay marriages he claims to be in favor of leaving it to the states.

But of course that's a farce, a deception, because he knows full well that it is just a matter of time before the Supreme Court imposes gay marriage on the entire country. The current court would probably do it, but certainly one with a couple of Kerry nominees would.

Then, as with abortion, Kerry would view the dictates of the Sup Court as the word of God. He (and the left in general) would say 'the courts have spoken, its now the law of the land, time to move on.' Suddenly his alleged federalist respect for states rights would disappear. And this is of course the plan. Does anyone seriously doubt that Kerry/Edwards don't know that the type of judges they would appoint would most certainly impose gay marriage?

You know, if one of the debate questions addressed this, and went something like; "Sen Kerry, you say that you believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states, so does that mean that you would make sure that your judicial nominees share that opinion just as you have pledged to make sure they share your support of abortion rights, and does that mean that if the federal courts do strike down marriage laws across the nation that you would then support some sort of Amendment to at least overturn the courts and return the power on this specific issue to the states?"

I think I'd die of shock if that question were asked.

But anyway, its always the same with the left. They know they can't win a fair, legislative or democratic fight to implement their far-left social values so they turn to the courts to do their dirty work for them.

If Bush does win reelection, then he could go a long ways in redeeming himself for failures with regards to spending and immigration if he makes good Sup Court nominations and then sticks with them and demands they get an up or down vote from the full Senate, and if it fails to turn around and nominate another judges just as conservative until he gets the full vote any President deserves for his nominees. Hopefully he and his people won't make the same monumental, legacy-tainting mistake that his father did with David Souter. I'm still wondering how that happened. Did they just F*** up or did that guy do a 180 once on the court?

"I don't believe personally that it's the government's job to step in and take my article of faith and transfer it to somebody who doesn't share that article of faith,'' said Kerry.

Then why does he think it's okay for the government to step in and make it illegal for someone to commit ____ (insert illegal act here)? If commiting ____ (insert illegal act here) is not against my "articles of faith", who is he to transfer his articles upon me?

This guy is supposed to be an intellectual?

" Kerry's comments drew guffaws from pro-life advocates."

Kerry's comments should draw guffaws from everyone.

"One on One " with Peter Jennings, July 22, 2004

Jennings asked, "If you believe that life begins at conception, is even a first-trimester abortion not murder?"

Kerry replied, "No, because it's not the form of life that takes personhood
in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past.
It's the beginning of life."

Anyone speak Kerryese ?
Anyone have the faintest idea of what this moron is saying ?
What is a personhood ???
Why isn't the media asking these same questions ?

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.