Did John Kerry Lie About Abortion?

[thicke]

govt has to protect our inalienable rights. (but this is beside the point of this thread really.)

Nope, it's exactly the point of this thread. The first unalienable right listed in the Declaration of Independence was life, followed by liberty and pursuit of happiness. Aborted babies are not afforded any of these three rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

[jmjtina]

Here's an answer to your question:

http://www.righttoliferoch.org/nbushlist.htm

The abortion laws are not going to be overturned overnight. Small things like defining a fetus as an unborn child go a long way in trying to battle people who think a baby is a glob of tissue.

word.

[Norseman82]

Or if he were Catholic the way Catholics are taught today (though this may change), he would vote for what he thought was moral based on his faith instead of what is democratic. ie only able to do things that aren't hurting other people

Next thing you know everyone's going to be voting their specific morals and we're going to regress to a society that is simply run by the moral majority vote instead of the majority vote for the moral truth of true democracy. ie again being able to do anything as long as it isn't hurting other people.

Isn't that what America was created for? Freedom? To stop countries from being run by majority rule?

That is all.

My apologies, I'm having a hard time following your logic.

But I also wanted to make a general comment to everyone regarding various forms of government:

Evil people can get into power no matter what the form of government.

Henry VIII, a monarch who inherited his throne, tore England away from the Catholic Church because the Pope enforced the biblical position on divorce/remarriage.

Stalin maneuvered his way to the top of the Communist party in Russia after Lenin died after the Communists overthrew the government.

Pol Pot was not democratically elected in Cambodia. Neither were the military leaders of Japan in the 1930's who led Japan into its military agressions.

And please keep in mind that Adolph Hitler was democratically voted into office in 1933.

[smeagol]

Nope, it's exactly the point of this thread. The first unalienable right listed in the Declaration of Independence was life, followed by liberty and pursuit of happiness. Aborted babies are not afforded any of these three rights.

i'm glad you said that, thicke.

this means the next step in our chain of logic is that abortion should be illegal even if the majority thinks it's okay.

[dairygirl4u2c]

this means the next step in our chain of logic is that abortion should be illegal even if the majority thinks it's okay.

Unless someone respects respecting other's choices (ie true democracy) above human life since it is disputed and the dispute is to some degree understandable. Is this necessarily wrong since the personhood is disputed within reason?

Edited February 24, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[ironmonk]

Unless someone respects respecting other's choices (ie true democracy) above human life since it is disputed and the dispute is to some degree understandable. Is this necessarily wrong since the personhood is disputed within reason?

There is NO logical reason to say that an unborn baby is not a human being.

What you call "true democracy" is NOT true democracy.

Using your logic, it would be ok to rape, that is someone's choice. Rape is a lesser crime than murder... but hey, if it's someone's choice to rape, then they've got the God given right to choose right?

Seriously, who has a right to choose who lives or dies?

What right has anyone to choose that a totally innocent life be killed?

Are you against capital punishment? If so, you are a hypocrite. If not, what about someone being killed when they are innocent? Reasonable doubt should protect them right?

It is reasonable doubt that a Godless society cannot know where life begins, but it does begin somewhere from conception and long before birth... THEREFORE IT IS reasonable doubt that an INNOCENT life might be killed... therefore it is WRONG.

ABORTION IS NOT A RIGHT IN AMERICA... THE COURTS HAVE IT BASED ON A RIGHT TO PRIVACY... NOT A RIGHT TO KILL AN INNOCENT BABY.

STUDY THE FACTS!!!

<insert the PM from me here>

That was as constructive as could be.

SHOW ME ONE RELIGION OR ONE SOCIETY THAT STATES THAT WE CAN KILL OUT OF CONVIENANCE.

INAPPROPRIATE COMMENT

-ironmonk

[smeagol]

whoa calm down iron monk!!

easy, boy!

i think you completely misinterpreted dairygirl's post! it was kinda worded funny (no offense) but thats no excuse to blow up on her!

here's what she said:

Unless someone respects respecting other's choices (ie true democracy) above human life since it is disputed and the dispute is to some degree understandable. Is this necessarily wrong since the personhood is disputed within reason?

'true democracy' is not limited by anyone's rights. democracy being what the majority wants even if that's wrong. Mill and de Tocqueville called it a Tyranny of the Majority. (like i said earlier, we cant settle for just a democracy, we need a liberal democracy )

here's my translation of the first fragment of her post: Unless we let people decide what they want instead of protecting lives. (yeah i know, it's a fragment)

and the second: the dispute of what constitutes a 'life' is not clear cut.

i believe she is alluding to the part in the constitution that thicke graciously quoted for us:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

does the word "men" in that case mean unborn fetuses (or fetii) ? although most of us Christians believe that fetuses are human lives, she is simply saying that this concept is not as clear to every person.

please, iron monk, ask your doctor to prescribe this to you

and forgive me dairy girl if for some reason i am the one who misinterpreted your post... :P

[dairygirl4u2c]

Again with the rape, murder etc. I don't know how many times I have explained how those are different. He is simply being stubborn in those areas.

Plus why don't we not allow euthanasia when the person is not available to voice his opinion? That is by far a worse atrocity than abortion because there is no dispute of the "personhood" within reason.

Anyway, I agree that we should put a ban on abortion say after the first trimester. I'd have to study the facts a little more to put a resonable (though yes arbitrary) date. Even theologians dispute when the baby becomes "really" a person. So in a way insisting on ceasing abortion early on is simply adhering to your idea of "sin" and not necessarily murder. Or if the Catholic Church teaches now (is this the infallible teaching or is this one not? and is all the terminology definitively and infallibly defined?) that it is murder at all times, why can't you acknowledge that it is your faith? Even if you think it is true? And if you acknowledge that, then maybe you could see my point that democratic freedom could be worth more than human life.

I agree that the Court is wrong to use the privacy reason. If it is for sure that life exists privacy is not an issue. But the court has made mention how they weren't sure of the life of the baby so they must've been using that as an "excuse" or I don't know. At any rate, privacy is not the real issue.

I've said many times if you don't think it's understandable and not a faith issue, that is your perogative. Ironmonk would tell me to get the facts. And that's fine if he thinks it's all factual. But at least he's not using the rape, murder of other undisputed people cop outs anymore.

Also Jas Jis would tell me I'm placing artificial limitations on what I can know, but I'd say he's placing artifical no limitations on what he can know.

although most of us Christians believe that fetuses are human lives, she is simply saying that this concept is not as clear to every person.

At least someone understands me.

Edited February 25, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[littleflower+JMJ]

Again with the rape, murder etc. I don't know how many times I have explained how those are different. He is simply being stubborn in those areas.

I agree that we should put a ban on abortion say after the first trimester. I'd have to study the facts a little more to put a resonable (though yes arbitrary) date. Even theologians dispute when the baby becomes "really" a person. So in a way insisting on ceasing abortion early on is simply adhering to your idea of "sin" and not necessarily murder. Or if the Catholic Church teaches now (is this the infallible teaching or is this one not? and is all the terminology definitively and infallibly defined?) that it is murder at all times, why can't you acknowledge that it is your faith? Even if you think it is true? And if you acknowledge that, then maybe you could see my point that democratic freedom could be worth more than human life.

I agree that the Court is wrong to use the privacy reason. If it is for sure that life exists privacy is not an issue.   But the court has made mention how they weren't sure of the life of the baby so they must've been using that as an "excuse" or I don't know. At any rate, privacy is not the real issue.

I've said many times if you don't think it's understandable and not a faith issue, that is your perogative. Ironmonk would tell me to get the facts. And that's fine if he thinks it's all factual. But at least he's not using the rape, murder of other undisputed people cop outs anymore.

Also  Jas Jis would tell me I'm placing artificial limitations on what I can know, but I'd say he's placing artifical no limitations on what he can know.

At least someone understands me.

whether they realize they are killing a baby or not doesn't make it okay.

its not a right to kill an unborn baby.

and that will never change.

and if we know its a baby then we should be the ones stopping it, less we be just as guilty as the others.

abortion kills children.

period.

are you doctor?

why you agreee with everything but when it comes to abortion shows alot.

your logic doesn't make sense at all, and it seems like you, yourself, are simply claiming true democracy and usign its false image to make your point and thats sad.

God bless and i am praying for you dairygirl, you seem to not realize the sacredness nor the dignity that LIFE has, and until you do then you will always have that wrong image of "democracy" that you speak.

LIFE is not a choice.

[ironmonk]

Again with the rape, murder etc. I don't know how many times I have explained how those are different. He is simply being stubborn in those areas.

I agree that we should put a ban on abortion say after the first trimester. I'd have to study the facts a little more to put a resonable (though yes arbitrary) date. Even theologians dispute when the baby becomes "really" a person. So in a way insisting on ceasing abortion early on is simply adhering to your idea of "sin" and not necessarily murder. Or if the Catholic Church teaches now (is this the infallible teaching or is this one not? and is all the terminology definitively and infallibly defined?) that it is murder at all times, why can't you acknowledge that it is your faith? Even if you think it is true? And if you acknowledge that, then maybe you could see my point that democratic freedom could be worth more than human life.

I agree that the Court is wrong to use the privacy reason. If it is for sure that life exists privacy is not an issue. But the court has made mention how they weren't sure of the life of the baby so they must've been using that as an "excuse" or I don't know. At any rate, privacy is not the real issue.

I've said many times if you don't think it's understandable and not a faith issue, that is your perogative. Ironmonk would tell me to get the facts. And that's fine if he thinks it's all factual. But at least he's not using the rape, murder of other undisputed people cop outs anymore.

Also Jas Jis would tell me I'm placing artificial limitations on what I can know, but I'd say he's placing artifical no limitations on what he can know.

At least someone understands me.

Rape is different than murder because it is less of a crime than murder. Abortion is murder. Murder is the ending of a human life, abortion is the ending of a human life before the child leaves the womb.

It doesn't matter when the abortion happens, all abortion is murder. The unborn child is a seperate human being from conception.

IT IS NOT A FAITH ISSUE. IT IS MORONIC TO STATE THAT IT IS. I AM SPEAKING FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANCE!

Reread the PM I sent you and my previous post.... s l o w l y.

Abortion has been considered wrong for thousands of years, long before the Catholic Church was around. Right and wrong does not change. Maybe if you would actually do a little research instead of think yourself so wise; you would learn something.

ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS:

Is it wrong for the government to use captial punishment? Why or Why not?

What "faith" if any, are you?

-ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS:

Is it wrong for the government to use captial punishment? Why or Why not?

As far as rape, it is hurting an undisputed person. Go back and reread what I posted "s l o w l y". It is "moronic" to equate capital punishment to abortion because in abortion, (in your manner of speaking) THE PERSONHOOD IS DISPUTED. lol It would not matter what I thought here.

I have done research. I am not so arrogant as to not. Scientific research even. Also I see that people don't think the baby is human, are they all ignornant? (hey it could seriously be the case)

I would encourage you to do research but I do want to note that most pro-choice arguments are vaque. They sound as if it doesn't matter that a life exists in the womb. Many are incoherent and/or leave one hanging. They should be arguing more explicity that it is the mother's choice if she thinks there is a true person there or if the baby is just part of her since it is dependant in that it is one with her etc.

Edited February 25, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[ironmonk]

But back to the main point of the post....

Not only is Kerry a liar on abortion....

Kerry supported the President's decission to attack Iraq.... now he uses it as a point against Bush?! What a crook.

Kerry preaches against special interest groups.... Kerry received over $650,000 from special interests groups, more than any other senator. What a crook.

just a few of facts on Kerry's record:

-proposal to cut intelligence spending by $1.5 billion for the five years prior to 2001 (S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95)

-1996 proposal to cut defense spending by $6.5 billion (S. 1580, Introduced 2/29/96)

-support for canceling or cutting funding for the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the B-1B, the F-15, the F-16, the M1 Abrams, the Patriot Missile, the AH-64 Apache Helicopter, the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, and the Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser. (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

-Of the $6.95 million that Kerry's campaign has spent on television ads, 74 percent of those ad dollars have funded a direct attack on the President. If Kerry was better, why would he need to spend so much on trashing someone else; with bold lies.

-Charles Lewis, Head of the Center for Public Integrity has said, “The idea that Kerry has not helped or benefited from a specific special interest, which he has said, is utterly absurd. … Anyone who gets millions of dollars over time, and thousands of dollars from specific donors, knows there's a symbiotic relationship. He needs the donors' money. The donors need favors. Welcome to Washington. That is how it works." (John Solomon, “Kerry blocked Big Dig provision, then got large donations,” The Associated Press, 2/4/04)

-Some of the attacks on Kerry are part of the normal "hazing" of a front-runner, said Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia. "He is typical of people who have been inside the Beltway for 20 years," Sabato said. "It's the mark of a successful politician. Only the unsuccessful try to remain consistent - deadly." (Craig Gordon, “Comments Catch Up to Kerry; Democratic front-runner faces charges of double-talk,” Newsday, 2/5/2004)

Kerry is a crook, a snake, and a liar. No integrity is shown from this "man".

Anyone to vote for him would be ignorant of the facts or evil... there is no logical reason to vote for Kerry. Kerry is much like jack chick in that he has to lie about Bush to make Bush look bad.... and Kerry even condemns himself with some of his attacks.

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[ironmonk]

As far as rape, it is hurting an undisputed person. Go back and reread what I posted "s l o w l y". It is "moronic" to equate capital punishment to abortion because in abortion, (in your manner of speaking) THE PERSONHOOD IS DISPUTED. lol It would not matter what I thought here.

I have done research. I am not so arrogant as to not. Scientific research even. Also I see that people don't think the baby is human, are they all ignornant? (hey it could seriously be the case)

I would encourage you to do research but I do want to note that most pro-choice arguments are vaque. They sound as if it doesn't matter that a life exists in the womb. Many are incoherent and/or leave one hanging. They should be arguing more explicity that it is the mother's choice if she thinks there is a true person there or if the baby is just part of her since it is dependant in that it is one with her etc.

Evidently you haven't done the research, and if you did, check your sources.

The personhood of a unborn baby is not disputed, only geniuses and liars try to say so.

What "faith" are you, if any?

[smeagol]

dude, ironmonk, what faith, if any, are YOU ?! a supposed "servant in Christ" is relentlessly bashing dairygirl and kerry. you called dairygirl moronic and you implied kerry is some sort of devil by putting this "man" in quotes. tell me oh faithful one, how Christ-like is that!?! quit using your Christian membership card as an excuse to belittle and attack others in such a way.

i will once again try to reword and elaborate on some of dairygirl's posts in such a way that may make more sense to you. so the following is not endorsed by her (yet); it is just my interpretation of the point she was making.... okay... we can't simply state that life begins at conception and call it quits. because we must acknowledge that some people think life starts at birth. after all, how old are you? do you count your pre-birth 'life' as part of your life ? no. we can't just ignore the voice out there that claims that you're not human till you're born, or at least till the second trimester (or whatever, i know naught of these terms). we can't simply say "nope you're wrong" what good will that do? instead of trying to convince them, we're turning them away from becoming pro-life and making the chasm between the two (prolife and prochoice) even greater.

my reply in another thread may shed some more light on what i'm trying to say:

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=8013

we prolifers must LISTEN to the opposition. we can't just dismiss them as evil baby-killers. they're people too. to deny this is to further entrench abortion in our society. we're not trying to scare them away from the idea of being prolife, but rather to convince them to join our side.

[ironmonk]

dude, ironmonk, what faith, if any, are YOU ?! a supposed "servant in Christ" is relentlessly bashing dairygirl and kerry. you called dairygirl moronic and you implied kerry is some sort of devil by putting this "man" in quotes. tell me oh faithful one, how Christ-like is that!?! quit using your Christian membership card as an excuse to belittle and attack others in such a way.

i will once again try to reword and elaborate on some of dairygirl's posts in such a way that may make more sense to you. so the following is not endorsed by her (yet); it is just my interpretation of the point she was making.... okay... we can't simply state that life begins at conception and call it quits. because we must acknowledge that some people think life starts at birth. after all, how old are you? do you count your pre-birth 'life' as part of your life ? no. we can't just ignore the voice out there that claims that you're not human till you're born, or at least till the second trimester (or whatever, i know naught of these terms). we can't simply say "nope you're wrong" what good will that do? instead of trying to convince them, we're turning them away from becoming pro-life and making the chasm between the two (prolife and prochoice) even greater.

my reply in another thread may shed some more light on what i'm trying to say:

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=8013

we prolifers must LISTEN to the opposition. we can't just dismiss them as evil baby-killers. they're people too. to deny this is to further entrench abortion in our society. we're not trying to scare them away from the idea of being prolife, but rather to convince them to join our side.

It is moronic to say that choice is above human life.

The opposition has been listened to, they refuse to listen to the facts... that is moronic.

This goes back a few months, you're coming into this in the middle of an ongoing dialog, so you do not see the full picture, let her answer.

You are clueless to the facts of why I wrote what I wrote. I have not belittled anyone, their own words have belittled them.

-ironmonk

Edited February 26, 2004 by ironmonk