Skip to comments.John Kerry Sidesteps Abortion Comment, Says Unborn a "Form of Life"
Posted on 08/03/2004 7:11:04 PM PDT by miltonim
click here to read article
He flopped again. John F*ckin' stretched like a trampoline trying to appease both the pro-life and pro-abort sides at the same time. Soon he'll end up looking like a human pretzel.
A slightly different image comes to mind - the Democratic Gumby.
Form of life? Lurch not only thinks that the United Nations is like the United Federation of Planets on Star Trek...he is comparing human life to TRIBBELS ! What a dope.
LOCK PHASERS MR. CHEKOV.
A 'form' of life? Tell me, Senator, is that 'form' of life yet worthy of life?
This guy is so nuanced his views seem to change by the hour.
So was political sterilization in Nazi Germany or human slavery in 19th century America.
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.''
This creep is almost as pathetic as those who want him in the White House.
Maybe he thinks the best way to over turn RvW is to convince the Dim's that unborn babies are really dolphins.
"The Bible itself - I mean, everything talks about different layers of development,"
"It's life Jim, but not as we know it."
Kerry is a form of life but I wouldn't consider him viable.
""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?
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 ?
It wll be interesting to see how Kerry's jargon evolves.
The ethical twister games of Kerryosophy should prove quite... revealing.
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.