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

[rlg94086]

Matt25:

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

Apparently, you can’t read:

Jay74:

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.

Matt25,

You need to show the correlation between the numbers and the “draconian policies”, and you’ll have a point. Otherwise, you are making a falacious argument by giving us two unrelated facts. If I showed a statistic that more people over the age of 80 died in the last four years, would that mean Bush was killing them off?

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[Jay74]

rlg94086:

Apparently, you can’t read

He probably just didn’t read everything, and skipped over my long and rambly one. He’s good about supporting what he says. I assure you he can read.

rlg94086:

You need to show the correlation between the numbers and the “draconian policies”, and you’ll have a point. Otherwise, you are making a falacious argument by giving us two unrelated facts. If I showed a statistic that more people over the age of 80 died in the last four years, would that mean Bush was killing them off?

Thanks for pointing out my stats, Robert.

In all fairness, I must disclose that–while I do know that there are more people in the age brackets most likely to get abortions–I do not know what the percentages are. Even the percentages may not tell all the facts, since there are many factors.

The only way we can really judge abortion is by a persons votes, statements, and actions. We will be appointing new supreme court justices in the next four years (at least one, maybe 2, possibly 3), and I ask this question: Which one of the two leading presidential candidates would be more likely to appoint justices that would overturn Roe vs Wade, Bush or Kerry?

I think the answer is clear–it is the guy who won.

 

[rlg94086]

Jay,

Of course, you are right!

Matt25,

My apologies for “Apparently, you can’t read”. It was uncharitable. I admit to getting easily irritated and typing before taking a couple of deep breaths.

Now, as for the argument, please do respond with any data you have to back up your support of Senator Kerry’s statement.

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[Matt25]

Jay74:

He probably just didn’t read everything, and skipped over my long and rambly one. He’s good about supporting what he says. I assure you he can read.

Well thank you for your kind words. I did not respond to your statistics because you did not source them. Similarly my question as to the figures Senator Kerry referred to was genuine, not rhetorical because he did not source them either.

As Sherlock Holmes said it is a capital mistake to theorise without data.

 

[Jay74]

Matt25:

Well thank you for your kind words. I did not respond to your statistics because you did not source them. Similarly my question as to the figures Senator Kerry referred to was genuine, not rhetorical because he did not source them either.

As Sherlock Holmes said it is a capital mistake to theorise without data.

I don’t have the precise source for the population trends on hand, they are at work. They weren’t done for abortion, but for planning for future governmental costs–for example, the number of children and elderly needing care vs the number of working age adults who pay taxes. I remembered the interesting fluxuations in age brackets, and the consultants explanation dating back to the depression.

I dont’ know everything that feeds into abortion trends. It’s ironic how politicians often want us to believe they have more power than they do when things are good, and less power when things are bad.

 

[rlg94086]

Matt25:

Well thank you for your kind words. I did not respond to your statistics because you did not source them. Similarly my question as to the figures Senator Kerry referred to was genuine, not rhetorical because he did not source them either.

As Sherlock Holmes said it is a capital mistake to theorise without data.

With all due respect, I don’t believe your question was genuine. In your follow-up post you make your walk-the-walk/talk-the-talk comment because no one gave you hard data to the contrary. Why do you only require hard data on one side? If it was a genuine question, you would be equally skeptical of Kerry’s comments.

If you meant it to be genuine, you could have said “Kerry made these comments on Russert’s show, is there any truth to them? Does anybody have the data?” and only made a comment after receiving data.

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[Magster]

I have read that the numbers of abortions rose under Bush because contraception was not as readily available. Even if that were the case, to say the lack of readily available contraception resulted in increased abortions ignores the fact that many types of contraceptives are abortofacients. Thus, while the number of reported abortions may have increased, regardless of the cause, the number of actual abortions did not necessarily change as the use of contraception may have resulted in abortions that were never recognized or reported.

 

[Matt25]

rlg94086:

With all due respect, I don’t believe your question was genuine. In your follow-up post you make your walk-the-walk/talk-the-talk comment because no one gave you hard data to the contrary.
Robert.

That was actually another question, more rhetorical than its predecessor certainly but a question nonetheless.

My feeling about Bush is that he wins Christian votes under false pretences since he promises more than he delivers. That does not make him unique among politicians of course

 

[HagiaSophia]

DATA SHOW CLAIMS OF INCREASED ABORTIONS UNDER BUSH DON’T HOLD UP
by Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., Director of Education & Research and Laura Hussey, M.P.M., Special Research Assistant, National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund

A piece by a California seminary professor is appearing on the internet and an in several newspapers claiming that abortions have increased under the Bush administration. While trotting out what appear to be detailed statistics from several states, the professor has one basic problem: his numbers don’t hold up.

nrlc.org/rko/index.html

 

[Lisa_N]

Magster:

I have read that the numbers of abortions rose under Bush because contraception was not as readily available. Even if that were the case, to say the lack of readily available contraception resulted in increased abortions ignores the fact that many types of contraceptives are abortofacients. Thus, while the number of reported abortions may have increased, regardless of the cause, the number of actual abortions did not necessarily change as the use of contraception may have resulted in abortions that were never recognized or reported.

Realize too that the abortion numbers are VOLUNTARILY self reported. Doctors do not have to provide information on the number of abortions they perform. So we have no idea if these numbers are accurate, inflated or reduced by non-reporting. I have never heard that contraception was less available. Again, WHY would it be less available? It is a legal product, insurance companies, even those that are Catholic based and thus opposed to abortofascients MUST provide contraception to their subscribers.

I’ve also seen the 'increased abortion numbers under Bush" debunked in a number of places. I’ll try to find the cites. However the idea that the President is somehow responsible for how many women seek out a perfectly legal procedure is utterly ridiculous.
How in the world would he do this even if he wanted to encourage abortion?

Matt is simply looking for a reason to bash Bush. It’s going the new sport I guess since so many people try to blame him for everything from the lack of flu vaccines to women earning 70 cents for every dollar men earned (these were Kerry campaign tidbits).

IOW red herring alert but most of you already recognized it.

Lisa N

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Magster:

I have read that the numbers of abortions rose under Bush because contraception was not as readily available. Even if that were the case, to say the lack of readily available contraception resulted in increased abortions ignores the fact that many types of contraceptives are abortofacients. Thus, while the number of reported abortions may have increased, regardless of the cause, the number of actual abortions did not necessarily change as the use of contraception may have resulted in abortions that were never recognized or reported.

Whoever is claiming that contraceptives are not readily available is living in a dream world. Contraceptives are more easily obtained than fresh tomatoes. Everywhere I turn around I feel like I see a condom machine.

The incidence of abortions rose right along with the availability of contraceptives. People who make this claim are not looking at the facts, period.

 

[swampfox]

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… )

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.

These people are in denial. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t enable aborticide and the culture of death with their vote in the first place.

 

[condan]

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?

Which draconian policies? Draconian towards whom?

 

[condan]

Magster:

I have read that the numbers of abortions rose under Bush because contraception was not as readily available…

Contraception is available in every Wal-Mart, K-Mart, CVS, Rite-Aid, Stop-N-Shop, 7-11, Stewarts, etc. on every street corner in every city, town and burb in America.

 

[Jay74]

condan:

Contraception is available in every Wal-Mart, K-Mart, CVS, Rite-Aid, Stop-N-Shop, 7-11, Stewarts, etc. on every street corner in every city, town and burb in America.

Don’t forget many schools.

 

[condan]

Jay74:

Don’t forget many schools.

How right you are!

 

[goofyjim]

I’m off to the desert folks. Bye.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Kerry was recently quoted as having said that it is the American way to grab the truth, turn it around, and use it.

Sure seems to be his approach.

 

[katherine2]

Matt25:

My feeling about Bush is that he wins Christian votes under false pretences since he promises more than he delivers. That does not make him unique among politicians of course

Fortunately, Catholics are less likely to fall for his foolishness than Evangelical Protestants. And only 19% of Catholics approved of the pro-Bush “Voter Guides”.

 

[tcay584]

Fortunately, Catholics are less likely to fall for his foolishness than Evangelical Protestants. And only 19% of Catholics approved of the pro-Bush “Voter Guides”.
[/quote]

Gosh Katherine2,
What aspects of the Voter Guides did you disagree with?
How can you be a Catholic but not follow the Church’s teachings? Your argument is like saying “I’m a Christian, but I don’t fall for all that Jesus stuff”