Kerry says being "pro-choice" is being "pro-life"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lisa4Catholics
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lisa4Catholics

Guest
Just when you think he can not twist his stance on life anymore:rolleyes: I will say this, it fits certain scriptures that talk about calling evil good and good evil:nope: What is sad is that people will end up agreeing with him.
lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05020404.html
 
On NBC Meet the Press Senator Kerry said the following

msnbc.msn.com/id/6886726/
MR. RUSSERT: Why and how do you believe the Democrats can broaden the base with pro-life Democrats when the party seems to require down-the-line voting in terms of abortion rights?

SEN. KERRY: We have pro-life Democrats today. Harry Reid is a leader. He is pro-life. We have others who are pro-life. I think what I was saying, Tim, is that, you know, you can’t be doctrinarian negative against somebody simply because they have that position. There’s more to it. Now, does that change the position of the Democratic Party in defending the right to choose? No, absolutely not. Not in the least.

But you can’t be–I mean, let me put it this way. Too many people in America believe that if you are pro-choice that means pro-abortion. It doesn’t. I don’t want abortion. Abortion should be the rarest thing in the world. I am actually personally opposed to abortion. But I don’t believe that I have a right to take what is an article of faith to me and legislate it to other people. That’s not how it works in America.

So you have to have room to be able to talk about these things in a rational way. We also need–I mean, I thought Hillary gave a good speech the other way in which she talked about the need–and many of us have talked about this for a long period of time. The discussion is not about being pro-abortion. The discussion is about how you truly value life. Valuing life is also valuing choice. Valuing life is the exception for the life of a mother or rape or incest. I mean, there are all kinds of values here. And in addition to that, we ought to be making certain that people understand there are other options. Abstinence is worth talking about. Adoption is worth talking about. There are many things we can do.

And do you know that in fact abortion has gone up in these last few years with the draconian policies that Republicans have where they talk about it, but they do nothing to find this kind of place of discussion. And under President Clinton, abortion went down because we did have adequate family planning services, because we talked about counseling, adoption and other kinds of things.

MR. RUSSERT: How about parental notification where a 16, 17…

SEN. KERRY: I think it’s important. I am for parental notification.

MR. RUSSERT: With a judicial bypass?

SEN. KERRY: With a judicial and doctor combined–I think you have to have some kind of adult involvement in the life of a young child to make a choice like that. But you can’t have one that drags on administratively or that you can’t have finality. It has to be done rapidly. It has to be done, you know, with certitude, and it has to be done sensitively in a way that sort of brings the parties together necessarily.
 
“Senator” Kerry said,“So you have to have room to be able to talk about these things in a rational way. We also need–I mean, I thought Hillary gave a good speech the other way in which she talked about the need–and many of us have talked about this for a long period of time. The discussion is not about being pro-abortion. The discussion is about how you truly value life. Valuing life is also valuing choice. Valuing life is the exception for the life of a mother or rape or incest. I mean, there are all kinds of values here. And in addition to that, we ought to be making certain that people understand there are other options. Abstinence is worth talking about. Adoption is worth talking about. There are many things we can do.”
The fith line down the “Senator” does the Matador’s “Ohley”. He starts with the point in question and as the Matador flicks the cape away as the bull charges, he flicks away the pro- abortion argument and says,"The discussion IS NOT about being Pro-Abortion. This is the manuever of a man who doesn’t want to be pinned down! On the street we would say that the man is talking out of two sides of his mouth. The Indian says the man talks with a forked tongue. This is typical of a person with a little bit of education - it is dangerous. He is dangerous.:mad: :mad:

He started out in agreement with Russart, then he redined the topic. He changed the meaning of Russarts question. All he showed there was the slyness of shallow man.
 
I agree Exporter he danced around it and twisted the evil of it and tried to make it look good.He tried to play two sides of the fence,it just doesn’t work.He and Hillary feel we are stupid and can not recognise snake tactics when we see them:banghead:
 
40.png
st_felicity:
Thank GOD he isn’t in the oval office!!!
Click to expand...
AMEN!:clapping: :dancing: :clapping:
 
He voted againt the nicknamed Conner Bill.
That recognized an unborn child in the womb as a life when both child was attacked while in his mother’s womb.
He voted against partial-birth abortion. When the child can be 9 months old and is partially delivered for crying out loud.
He tries to talk as if he’s a moderate but he’s a radical abortion proponenet. Pro=life christians didn’t beleive him in Novemeber and they won’t beleive him if he runs again. And why is he on tv? He lost he needs to dissapear like all good loosers do.
 
Looking back, I can’t believe the Democrats were dumb enough to nominate this blow-dried stumbler as their candidate.
 
Is his statement~
“And do you know that in fact abortion has gone up in these last few years with the draconian policies that Republicans have where they talk about it, but they do nothing to find this kind of place of discussion. And under President Clinton, abortion went down because we did have adequate family planning services, because we talked about counseling, adoption and other kinds of things.”

factually correct? Doesn’t that make GWB the pro-choice candidate?
 
Regarding Kerry’s statement that valuing life means valuing choice, I couldn’t help think of Mengele who chose to send children to the left and their mothers to the right.
 
40.png
Matt25:
Is his statement~
“And do you know that in fact abortion has gone up in these last few years with the draconian policies that Republicans have where they talk about it, but they do nothing to find this kind of place of discussion. And under President Clinton, abortion went down because we did have adequate family planning services, because we talked about counseling, adoption and other kinds of things.”

factually correct? Doesn’t that make GWB the pro-choice candidate?
Click to expand...
That would depend on whether it is morally acceptable to kill a child because of a fear of or actual poverty.Or is it the government who is suposed to care for the poor or the Christians?The government likes to attach nooses to government aid,and makes people dependant on the aid.Also the help is alot of times denied on those who truly need it.God Bless
 
40.png
Matt25:
Is his statement~
“And do you know that in fact abortion has gone up in these last few years with the draconian policies that Republicans have where they talk about it, but they do nothing to find this kind of place of discussion. And under President Clinton, abortion went down because we did have adequate family planning services, because we talked about counseling, adoption and other kinds of things.”

factually correct? Doesn’t that make GWB the pro-choice candidate?
Click to expand...
OH, PLEASE!
Kerry, Kennedy and others pretend to be Catholic.
Abortion mongers filibuster in the Senate to prevent Pro-Life judicial appointments.
Liberal judges thwart federal and state laws attempting to stem abortion.
And you want to praise Clinton who vetoed Pro-Life legislation and appointed nothing but pro-abort judges and didn’t know what “is” is.
Get a grip.
Newman60
 
Kerry doesn’t need an ‘article of faith’ to be against abortion. There are plenty of scientific facts that would support that position. He belittles faith, ignores science and slithers past any tough questions. I agree, I thank God every day that man is not in the White House

Lisa N
 
40.png
Matt25:
Is his statement~
“And do you know that in fact abortion has gone up in these last few years with the draconian policies that Republicans have where they talk about it, but they do nothing to find this kind of place of discussion. And under President Clinton, abortion went down because we did have adequate family planning services, because we talked about counseling, adoption and other kinds of things.”

factually correct? Doesn’t that make GWB the pro-choice candidate?
Click to expand...
Matt25,

Sorry friend. While the number of abortions may have trended up in the last four years ( I honestly don’t know the numbers. ), I doubt you can find any “draconian” cuts in any programs that would have stopped these abortions. The variation is probably coincidental.

Why in the world are you trying to defend pro-choice sentiments? Are you also for euthenasia?

God Bless,

Robert.
 
40.png
Matt25:
Is his statement~
“And do you know that in fact abortion has gone up in these last few years with the draconian policies that Republicans have where they talk about it, but they do nothing to find this kind of place of discussion. And under President Clinton, abortion went down because we did have adequate family planning services, because we talked about counseling, adoption and other kinds of things.”

factually correct? Doesn’t that make GWB the pro-choice candidate?
Click to expand...
Not even close. This argument has been given by many people looking to tailor the issues to fit the candidate they prefer, instead of picking a candidate based on issues.

Rarely can you look at one statistic and say “see, more abortions under Bush than Clinton so Bush is more pro-choice” or “it must be Bush’s fault”. etc. Things aren’t that simple.

As one who works in government, I’ve seen all sorts of neat statistics about trends and future expectations, etc. One neat futurist stat is the number people in various age brackets (used for basing estimates on future incomes and elderly care, etc). There is actually a higher number of people in the age brackets most likely to get abortions now than there were when clinton was president. The group was larger a few years before clinton was in office (i’m not criticizing clinton, i’m merely saying his policies weren’t what slowed abortion).

In a few years, the number will be smaller than the current group. Then the number will grow again. This takes a bit of explaining, but to cite it briefly, generations aren’t growing steadily over time–one generation will be larger, the next smaller, the next larger, etc. This traces back to the Great Depression, when people avoided pregnancy for financial reasons, then the generation after had more kids. Since the generation before them was smaller, they logically don’t have as many kids. etc. Even the term generation is not always adequate, since it is normally a decade or so of a fluxuation.

Also, economics does contribute. Clinton inherited the Y2K boom, Bush inherited a recession and 9/11.

No simple answers. But to say various policies are what makes someone pro-life or pro-choice, instead of looking at their votes and judicial nominees, isn’t accurate. Especially since no one, no matter how much they brag about what they claim to have done, has as much influence over the economy as they would want us to believe.
 
Anyone who can vote as Kerry did is beyond even the possibility of even a thought to vote for him.SOMEONE CAN NOT CLAIM HONESTLY TO CARE ABOUT ANYTHING AND VOTE LIKE HE DID AGAINST LIFE,OH, AND ALL 9 MONTHS OF PREGNANCY:banghead:
 
40.png
rlg94086:
Matt25,

Sorry friend. While the number of abortions may have trended up in the last four years ( I honestly don’t know the numbers. ), I doubt you can find any “draconian” cuts in any programs that would have stopped these abortions. The variation is probably coincidental.

Why in the world are you trying to defend pro-choice sentiments? Are you also for euthenasia?

God Bless,

Robert.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t put it past planned parenthood to over report their abortions during the Bush admin and underreport their abortions during the Clinton years. THis is an organization which seeks to kill life so I don’t trust them.
 
If the number of abortion has risen under Bush by comparison with Clinton, and no one has denied it which of these statements is more accurate~

a) Bush talks the talk.

or

b) Bush walks the walk
 
40.png
Maccabees:
I wouldn’t put it past planned parenthood to over report their abortions during the Bush admin and underreport their abortions during the Clinton years. THis is an organization which seeks to kill life so I don’t trust them.
Click to expand...
True! What’s a little lie to those that murder?

I 'm just floored by those that defend their vote for Kerry–there has to be some major rationalizing gymnastics to do so simply based on the undeniable FACT he has no core beliefs that cannot be shifted by the political winds. His claim in July '04 that “life begins at conception” but an embryo is not a “person” by law totally mirrors the justifications made about slavery in the 19th century. How anyone can hear that kind of mealy -mouth garbage over and over again and believe he merited the white house is beyond me. If he really believes that way, he’s saying Man’s law holds sway over God’s law–the “Law” becomes God and we don’t question it’s morality. Just one example should be enough–but there are myriad!

My brothers all voted for Kerry. My brothers are well educated and intelligent people. We have different political views, but I don’t think they’re crazy–yet for the life of me, I can’t understand how they can ignore the obvious truth that a man that is so easily manipulated by —what? lobbyists? special interest groups? his own personal rationalizations?–cannot lead effectively and would put our safety at risk–IT WAS SO OBVIOUS–HOW can a person defend a vote for Kerry? What kind of glasses do you have to wear to miss what is right in fron of your face? My brothers won’t talk to me about politics–mostly because I ask them hard questions and instead of answering they dismiss me as their nutty pro-life Catholic sister. To have nice holidays, I rarely bring politics up anymore.
(sorry for the rant…:o )

Again, thank (the true) GOD Kerry was defeated. The election may be over, but the kind of thinking that rationalizes a vote for a candidate such as Kerry needs to be corrected for future elections.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top