quote:

---

"Peace and freedom depend upon this election. Prosperity for the people depend upon this election," Bush said while wrapping up a campaign stop with about 1,200 supporters in Niles, in the southwest corner of Michigan.

---

From CNN -- Full Story

I resent the implication that *any* of our currently elected officials -- Democrat or Republican -- would do anything to knowingly endanger the freedom of the American people. I also resent the implication that there is only one road to peace and to prosperity.

Bush sure doesn't have a monopoly on peace (hmm...he DID start a war), freedom (Patriot Act, anyone?), or prosperity (job losses, recessions...we'll see about the job reports coming up, but it hasn't been great thus far). *Honestly* now.

I've had it up to *here* with this guy misleading people.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Well, I think he's talking about unintentionally endangering freedom - as in having mistaken policies.

And for what it's worth, I think he's right on this one. Peace and freedom DOES depend on the outcome of this election - just not in the way I suspect he thinks.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Kasie,

I'm gonna go out a naive limb here, but I think the nature of "misleading" is THE question, apropos.

fallow
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I agree with you, Kasie H...
From what I've read of about Bush... I don't think having a second year of him would be a good idea.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I fail to see how what he said is misleading. Many people on both sides agree with that quote.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
I also love it when people lay all the blame of the war on Bush. I don't like the man personally, but Congress voted to go to war as well. The entire government was behind it. I just think it's funny that people keep using him as a scapegoat.
 

---

Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
 
I'm glad I'm not the only one who shudders at the thought of 4 more years of Republican rule (both in the Executive and Legislative branches). This isn't just partisan bashing (though I'll admit that I don't agree with their vies), but I don't think that there should be the same party in both branches (and definitely not in all 3).

quote:

---

"I'm the kind of fellow that when I say something I mean it."

---

Heh, I like that line, especially when he start using his own words. I may have to start taking up that saying of his.

Personally, I kinda wish Colin Powell would have run for Pres. I'd have voted for him (well, except for his remarks made in India that "they" (I'm assuming the administration) would try to keep jobs coming to them).
 

---

Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
 
How many positions in the government change with the new President? All the secretaries of everything are new with each administration, is that right?
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
Slacker, Powell won't run. His wife said she would leave him for fear of him being assasinated by some white supremacist wacko.
 

---

Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
 
From my understanding (it may be flawed), but basically anyone with an important title of the opposite party is tossed out on their ear.

I don't agree with a lot of things Bush has said, although I dislike him less than I used to. I think he's a genuinely good person, but, for the most part, the people surrounding him are machiavellian (which isn't always a bad thing, in this case it is).

I personally like republicans. I just hate the national republican party. I don't like the way the party leadership has taken the party, but the only politicians I like are in the republican party (or were, namely Jim Jeffords, my senior senator). The other two I'm thinking of specifically are John McCain (why didn't he beat Bush in 2000? Was the GOP on crack?) who's the coolest politician on the planet, and Jim Douglas, our state governor.

(BTW, I live in Vermont. Neener neener!)

[ May 04, 2004, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Kasie-- in addition to the war in Iraq, you may also thank your Congressman for the Patriot Act.

Couldn't have gone through without fervent backing by the Dems. . .

As far as Bush's responsability for the recession-- you do realize that the recession was short lived, and not terrible, and that we're coming out of it? That's why interest rates are going up-- because the recession is over.

As has been pointed out before, the president, generally, can do very little to strong arm the economy into health or depression. I agree that some of his fiscal policies (I'm extremely wary of his tax cuts, and the extra child tax credit) have been irresponsible-- especially with the war in Iraq-- but if you're going to lay the blame for the short, relatively harmless recession that was coming anyway due to overvaluation on Bush II, then you'd need to lay the recovery at his feet as well.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 

quote:

---

I also love it when people lay all the blame of the war on Bush. I don't like the man personally, but Congress voted to go to war as well. The entire government was behind it.

---

quote:

---

Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. There was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world.

Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that one hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in the bitterly hostile land.

---

From George Bush Sr.'s Memoirs

What is our exit strategy? What is Bush's plan for keeping the various ethnic and religious factions in check?

Yes, it has only been a year since the war started. Perhaps if the President had any credibility left, you could make the argument that we should give him more time to prove himself. But after the WMD debacle the burden of proof is firmly on the Bush administration and not on his detractors.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
While I love to play the blame game as much as the next guy, I'm fairly certain that proving culpability in the WMD affair will NOT matter the least in how long the war in Iraq lasts.

Will Bush's indictment and imprisonment and even execution for waging an illegal war against Iraq make our troops there unnecessary? Or international military presence unnecessary? Not hardly. Not even if it was shown that Bush rented a three story condo inside Haliburton's pockets.

And so, villify Bush all you want for the war in Iraq-- it may even be merited. But Iraq merits our attention and military presence more today than it did at the start of this war.

[ May 04, 2004, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
Don't be silly Scott. Haliburton can afford much better than three-story condos.

Let's recap our short conversation here.

quote:

---

Me: Bush started a war that will not end.

You: It has only been one year. Do not blindly asserted that the war will not end.

Me: Bush has yet to articulate a viable exit strategy. I cannot go on faith based on the man's lack of credibility.

You: Iraq needs our military attention today more than ever.

---

quote:

---

I don't think having a second year of him would be a good idea

---

Too bad we're in our fourth year.
 

---

Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
 
What kinda sticks in MY craw about his tour yesterday (I think this was yesterday) is that WE.... the TAX PAYERS, got billed for his stumping because this was billed as a White House event.
He should take his OWN damn money to stump and campaign. Not our money thats supposed to go towards RUNNING the Gov't.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 

quote:

---

Bush is an idiot who started a war that will not end. The Democrats are spineless morons who were afraid to stand up to him. I hate them all.

---

Are you democrat? You must also be a spineless moron then.

Seriously, abandon your stupid party loyalty and vote for who you think will do the most good for this country.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
There was an Onion article when Bush took office that had him giving a speech "Finally! The long nightmare of peace and prosperity is over!" In it he talked about how the economy would be trashed and he guaranteed before the year was out we would "mix it up with somebody". I wonder if that article is still extant, or if anyone saved a copy, and just how prescient it was? <laughs> I remember when I read it laughing at how true it rang. Does anyone else remember that?
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 

quote:

---

That said, I don't think the war is interminable. I don't have enough evidence or history to make that sort of judgement.

---

That is a perfectly acceptable answer Scott, and on this point we just have to agree to disagree.
As you pointed out, Bush did not do a good job of planning the Iraq occupation or garnering international support. Given his fumbles on these two fronts, you must excuse my lack of faith that he would be able to safely pull us out of Iraq in the foreseeable future.

Nick, I am an independnet, in case you missed the fact that my post criticized both Bush and the Democrats.

In my opinion, I don't know how Republicans can continue to support Bush. His defecit spending and inept military planning seems to negate two of the main principles of Republican doctrine.

edited for spelling:

[ May 04, 2004, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
:edited to remove snarky comment:

I'm voting for Bush because he is anti-abortion.

[ May 04, 2004, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
Luckily, it turns out she was right

Trelawny did make two correct predictions...
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Bush shouldn't have a second term based on his economic policies alone...
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
We in Missouri are getting a lot of T.V. ads for the election.

The Majority of the President Bush ads have been attacking John Kerry, saying "He voted this way on this bill so he must be soft on the Military."

The Majority of the John Kerry ads have been promoting John Kerry, saying "John Kerry did this and that and he plans on doing this and that."

I find the attack ads of President Bush to be low and slimy, while John Kerry's ads are more factual.

Although this tactic may be because there are already plenty of people attacking President Bush, I must say I approve of Kerry's ads.

A similar situation happened in Missouri last week.

Vice President Cheney asked to come to Westminster College to give a "Foriegn Policy Statement." Ever since Winston Churchill coined the phrase "Iron Curtain" at a speech in Westminster College, the school has been a top place from which major foriegn policy announcements are made. The president of the University readilly agreed.

Instead of announcing some major foriegn policy initiative, Vice President Cheney used the forum to attack Mr. Kerry .

This purly political attack so upset the school administration that they asked Mr. Kerry to give a speech.

Did Mr. Kerry come in and attack President Bush? Only secondly. His first priority was to calmly put forward his own views on Iraq . He made the foriegn policy speech that Mr. Cheney had promised to make.

Basically, Mr. Kerry's campaign is coming off looking classier and more polite than President Bush's.

I'm not sure if this is a winning strategy, but it is getting my approval.
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hanity endorse Bush and think all is well--well, it least all would be well of those darn dems would move over. He must be a good guy who we should vote for. Debate over.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
Grrrrr.... Scott, now people think I'm a weirdo HP fan randomly inserting Hogwarts references!

I respect your choice to vote for Bush based on his social policies. I do not agree with them, but at least Bush's social platform is consistent with traditional Republican ideals.
 

---

Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
 
What is the point of voting purely on the basis of whether or not a politician is pro-life or pro-choice?

What a monumental waste.

If Bush was for homosexual equality I still would not vote for the man BASED ON HIS FIRST FOUR YEARS IN OFFICE.

Sheesh. If you WANT the world to change increasingly in the directions that it has been changing since President Bush took office, then you should vote for him. If you think foreign policy and/or domestic policy are in shambles and you are greatly disturbed by the thought of four more years of the same political philosophy holding the most power in the world, then you should vote against him.

I will never cease to be amazed at conservatives who use the pragmatic act of voting to express their social views, whether or not those views are relevant to the office being contested.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
JK- it's naive to promote the idea that the office of the president doesn't legislate.

In any case-- Kerry represents a worldview that supports murders of convenience. Would YOU support someone who had all the economic qualifications, all the military qualifications, was genuine, personable, and had international support BUT also supported pederasty?

There are some things in my philosophy that are deal breakers-- support of abortion is one of them. If Roe vs. Wade ever comes up to be removed, I want someone in office who won't veto its removal.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Here's the thing, Bush is a terrible canidate to support on the basis that he's bought back, or at least has emphasised this attitude that we DON'T need.
This us vs them mentality.
He's alienated most of Europe, his tactics towards Iraq have angered a great deal of the middle east.
His economic policies are ridiculous, views towards homosexuals, do we really need a marriage amendment?
I cannot stress how much Bush's policies frustrate me. I do not want that man representing me, plain and simple...
But it's hard to sound articulate and express this correctly... *frustrated*
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 

quote:

---

What kinda sticks in MY craw about his tour yesterday (I think this was yesterday) is that WE.... the TAX PAYERS, got billed for his stumping because this was billed as a White House event.
He should take his OWN damn money to stump and campaign. Not our money thats supposed to go towards RUNNING the Gov't.

---

quote:

---

There are some things in my philosophy that are deal breakers-- support of abortion is one of them. If Roe vs. Wade ever comes up to be removed, I want someone in office who won't veto its removal.

---

And in all truth, abortion is not REALLY an issue. I mean, if we were to ever truly get a president in office who was really, truly, deeply against abortion, he could outlaw it with the swipe of a pen on an executive order. But none of them have the guts to do it, so it really is a non-issue in a presidential race. Because it will always be left up to the supreme court and lawmakers other than the administrative branch.

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
 
"Basically, Mr. Kerry's campaign is coming off looking classier and more polite than President Bush's."

Not from my perspective. And I live the DC area. How can you say this taking into account all of the snide comments and cheap shots that the Kerry campaign, and more specifically Sen. Kerry himself, have been heaping on the president and adinistration for the last few months? Have you honestly forgot John Kerry "accidently" being overheard personally insulting the President at a news conference? Or Kerry being quoted calling he current administration crooked and liars? Not very classy.

My major complaint about the Kerry campaign has been the fact that I have yet to hear much from except "Bush is dumb. We hate 'em too so vote for Kerry." Maybe this is just because I live in commonwealth that is not considered a battle ground state and therefore I don't get much in the way of campaign adds on the television? I am looking forward to the debates when hopefully there will more than just hot air coming from both of the candidates.

Pal

edited: for speeling

[ May 06, 2004, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

In any case-- Kerry represents a worldview that supports murders of convenience. Would YOU support someone who had all the economic qualifications, all the military qualifications, was genuine, personable, and had international support BUT also supported pederasty?

---

quote:

---

In any case-- Kerry represents a worldview that supports murders of convenience. Would YOU support someone who had all the economic qualifications, all the military qualifications, was genuine, personable, and had international support BUT also supported pederasty?

---

Tresopax also responded well to this, Scott, but I want to add that you are being intentionally vindictive in your partisan labelling in order to further justify your position on single-issue voting. You basically just took the well-thought-out convictions of a man (granted, convictions with which you disagree) and equated them with murderous intent and lack-of-conscience, as well as comparing him to a sex offender.

You might do well to remember that Senator Kerry's worldview on abortion is currently the LAW, and it's a worldview with which at LEAST 49% of Americans agree. In the rest of first-world Earth, that percentage is even higher.

Not that I'm trying to convince you that you are wrong by strength in numbers; I just think you ought to be a little more responsible with your metaphors, especially when they can also apply to other people in this thread. Namely, myself.

When you go into the ballot box, please ask yourself who you think would really do the most good (or least harm) and check that box. That might sound all wussy and "relative" to you, but unless you *honestly* believe that John Kerry is going to personally see that every woman wanting an abortion can get one at the local kwiki-mart, voting to reelect Bush solely on the basis of his pro-life position--which has gained you what, exactly, in the last four years?--is bordering on party-line fanaticism.

IMO.
 

---

Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
 
You think it's funny that conservatives have buyer's remorse over the Bush administration because... let me get this straight... because we elected Clinton twice?


 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

After all, Bush has been office for four years now - are we any closer to getting abortions banned?

---

quote:

---

I want to add that you are being intentionally vindictive in your partisan labelling in order to further justify your position on single-issue voting.

---

quote:

---

Would you vote for someone who would destroy the economy, ruin the military, was a liar, complete jerk, and was hated internationally, but was the only alternative option to a highly qualified person who supported pederasty?

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

The literature/propaganda from pro-abortion advocates is that Bush is a threat to their programme.

---

quote:

---

No-- I don't think I'd vote at all.

Which sums up my current frustration. I can't support the Dems, I don't really want to support the Republicans. I'm disillusioned with the political offerings-- or offal, as it were.

What to do?

---

quote:

---

What part of your internal philosophy considers it consistent to equate pro-choice support to acceptance of pedastry?

---

quote:

---

like saying, "John Kerry doesnt like stealing but, he is going to let you steal because he does not feel that it is appropriate to regulate your actions?"

---

quote:

---

The fact that you include pedophilia as a comparable example of something that would keep you from voting for a candidate illustrates that you view this difference in opinion not as a matter of personal convictions but as an actual character flaw. That's just assinine if you ask me.

---

quote:

---

I think it's a fair comparison in regards to how conservatives feel about abortion.

---

quote:

---

Am I understanding...?

---

quote:

---

Scott is assigning the moral repugnance of pedophilia to the Democratic platform on the basis of its pro-choice position, despite the fact that there are legitimate reasons to be pro-choice and there are no legitimate reasons to rape little boys.

---

An anti-abortion person might say there's equally few reasons to "kill" fetuses. Similarly, a pro-pedophilia person would likely claim there's plenty of legitimate reasons to have intercourse with little boys.

Scott is talking about what you would do if you (like he apparently does) felt supporting abortion was just as repugnant and unjustified as supporting pedophilia.
 

---

Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
 
Thank you, Tresopax. Now try presenting an argument on Scott's behalf, if you will, explaining the moral equivalency of accepting legal abortions with sensible restrictions and supporting the rape of little boys.

I sure hope I'm not the only one around here who finds unnecessarily extreme metaphors to be not only useless, but atypically uncivil.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
I happen to like extreme metaphors, thank you very much! (Particularly ones involving pedophilia, Hitler, and/or terrorists.)
 

---

Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
 
Tres, part of the problem with this country and its joke of a two-party system is this tendency for extremes and our obsession with these supposedly good vs. evil divisions.

When you add nothing but black and white to public discourse the only thing you end up with is grey.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Is it like saying:

quote:

---

"John Kerry doesnt like stealing but, he is going to let you steal because he does not feel that it is appropriate to regulate your actions?"

---

quote:

---

Tres, part of the problem with this country and its joke of a two-party system is this tendency for extremes and our obsession with these supposedly good vs. evil divisions.

---

quote:

---

When you add nothing but black and white to public discourse the only thing you end up with is grey.

---

code:

---

Place a check on the appropriate line:

             Agree             Disagree

God          _____              _____

Gays         _____              _____

Guns         _____              _____

Abortion     _____              _____

---

quote:

---

I have done my best to answer the questions JK has posed; now I would ask that he answer this:

Would you vote for the pederast? Why or why not?

---

quote:

---

. I just don't understand how you can go on thinking that that's a sensible position to hold, given its utter irrelevancy to the election.

---

quote:

---

f you want American politics to evolve into something a little more grown-up, maybe you should start voting on issues that are more relevant to government rather than being a slave to social wedge issues. How about voting for a person rather than a platform?

---

quote:

---

can you at least try to understand how silly it is to hire a CEO for the country based on their beliefs about the womb rather than their suitability to lead the country? Especially when the womb is outside of the CEO's jurisdiction?

---

The citizen inside the womb, silly.

Makes a world of difference to me.

Just as you could never vote for a pedophile, I cannot support someone who knows a murder will occur, has the power to help stop it, and has pledged to do nothing.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
:removing stupid comment:

[ May 06, 2004, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Actually, Kerrey is being extremely disingenuous with his statements on abortion. He says he holds the accepted Catholic belief on abortion, but doesn't feel that his belief should be pushed on others. This is an absolutely untenable position to be in.

The Catholic position on abortion is that human life of equal worth and dignity to every other human life begins at conception. Abortion is wrong is exactly as wrong as murder because it is the willful killing of a human being. It is murder. If Kerry is being honest when he says he believes this, he has no logical way to say abortion is a matter of personal conscience any more than he can say murder is.

There are other reasons to justify abortion. Some of them have been advanced here in other threads: that a fetus is not fully human before a certain point, that even if a fetus is human, the rights of the mother to control her body override the fetus's right to life, that equal protection says women should not be required to sacrifice more than men in supporting the lives of others. You all know what I think of those arguments, but that's not the point here.

The point is, Kerry has stated he believes abortion is the moral equivalent of murder, but that people should be allowed to choose to commit this type of murder. That's not a position possible to hold with any integrity.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Actually, I think that position is perfectly valid (in no small part because that is, in fact, the position I hold on the matter.) Just because something is highly immoral does not mean the government needs to legislate it. It may be that I (or Kerry) believe that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder, but also that society would be harmed more than it is helped by trying to legislate everything that everyone considers equally wrong.

For instance, many believe that worshipping the wrong god is something that could lead to eternal damnation. Does this mean they also should necessarily believe that worshipping any god other than their own should be illegal? No.

When it comes to issues where there is great contraversy and no complete proof one way or the other - issues like religion - we don't legislate things that we may otherwise find horribly wrong.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I don't know - we have an equal protection clause in our constitution. If you believe an unborn child is as fully human as a born one, you'd be advocating violating that clause by not providing the same protection from murder to them you provide to all other humans.

The primary reason to make an action illegal because the action harms others. According to the belief Kerry claims to hold, abortion causes the ultimate harm to another. If this doesn't cry out for legal sanction, nothing does.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
If I was a human (and more importantly in this case, an American citizen) at my conception, then I'd like to sue the government for keeping me from drinking for 9 extra months, from driving 9 extra months; I'll also be warning them that I expect to get my Social Security and 401k retirement income 9 months early, or there'll be hell to pay!

*Shakes fist curmudgeonly*



-Bok
 

---

Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
 
Hey Scott, I was talking a big game but I didn't mean to really insult you. Nor do I mean to sound vitriolic. I'm sorry if I marginalized your views. For what it's worth, my comment that American politics needs to grow up was an untargeted judgement on the whole system rather than you yourself.

I do believe that democracy has been stifled in large part because of these and other issues. Issues that generally involve people making decisions for other people. It gets on my nerves.

I do understand your rationale for not voting for Kerry. I only hope that you can recognize that it's possible to disagree with abortion without banning it altogether; and that holding that position is <sarcasm>somewhat less scandalous</sarcasm> than a pederast running for office.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Bok: Specious argument. The government has decided to measure age for purpose of drinking from birth, since it's a fixable date. The age 21 is arbitrary.

Dagonee
Edit: And people become American citizens at birth, according to the Constitution.

[ May 07, 2004, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
By that latter argument I'd say Kerry's position is legally tenable, if not morally consistent (or commendable).

And I was joking about the former, I really don't care

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Dag I don't think Kerry's position in invalid.

He says he holds the Catholic Belief about the sin of abortion, but that he recognizes others may have different beliefs. Its a matter of faith.

It is also a Catholic Belief that everyone should believe in the divinity of Christ or suffer eternally in Hell. That does not mean that every Catholic should create a law mandating conversion to save untolid millions from suffering eternally.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
But the Catholic belief in Hell involves a person suffering for his own mistakes.

The Catholic belief on abortion isn't that it is wrong - it's that it is murder because the fetus is due the same respect, dignity, and protection as any other human being - because it is a human being. In other words, the Catholic belief is that the fetus is a child. Kerry obviously supports laws banning post-birth child murder. This leads to one of 3 conclusions:

1) Kerry truly holds the belief that an aborted child is a murder victim, in every sense of the words, but does not think such a child deserves the same protection a child 9 months older does.

2) Kerry holds some nebulous belief that abortion is "wrong" and thinks that is the Catholic teaching on the subject.

3) Kerry does not think abortion is wrong and is lying about his beliefs.

1 is a monstrous belief to hold. 2 and 3 indicate he's lying about something. Which is it?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
...There are plenty of pro-choice women who elect not to have abortions.

I think Kerry's position makes complete sense.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
So do I. Especially since I believe it's a bad idea to ban abortion outright.
That would only make the problem a lot worse.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
OK, this discussion isn't about people in general who choose not to have abortions but remain pro-choice. It is about a man who claims to believe that abortion is murder yet should not be illegal.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
Dag,

it's my experience that Catholics have a long tradition of trying to navigate the conflicts of their faith and the culture they live in.

There's also a fair amount of compartmentalization thrown in, and it's not limited to Catholics in public office, like Kerry.

Awhile ago, I posted some info on the Pope's statements on tube feeding and people in persistent vegetative state (or people who are believed to be in that state). He stated clearly that there is to be a presumption of providing basic care - including food and water via tube - to these people. Depriving people of this would be an act of euthanasia.

This has stopped the U.S. Catholic Church in its tracks. The positions that U.S. bishops have taken on matters like Terri Schiavo range from "fence-sitting and hand-wringing" to sanctioning the starvation of Schiavo and others like her.

The reaction of the U.S. Council of Bishops on the Pope's statements on tube-feeding?

They want a year to consider it. Meanwhile, we can all assume, the starvations will go on within Catholic-run facilities.

I don't want this to be seen as Catholic-bashing. I think just about every faith has its struggles and internal inconsistencies. Catholics are no exception.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
sndrake, I agree. And if Kerry were saying he was conflicted about his beliefs, or was considering them, he wouldn't be in the position he is now. Read what I said again - Kerry claims to believe the Catholic teaching on abortion absolutely. That teaching is that abortion is murder. That's the problem I have with his statements on this topic.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

it's possible to disagree with abortion without banning it altogether

---

quote:

---

why would pregnancy due to rape in any way justify abortion? Isn't the child just as innocent?

---

quote:

---

If you believe something is murder but cannot present any evidence for that belief beyond faith, what right have you to say the government should force that belief upon a whole group of other people who do not believe it is murder?

---

quote:

---

If you believe something is murder but cannot present any evidence for that belief beyond faith, what right have you to say the government should force that belief upon a whole group of other people who do not believe it is murder?

---

quote:

---

We have the resources necessary to raise any and all unwanted children that could possibly be born

---