Sen. Kerry and his abortion position

  • Thread starter Thread starter rarndt01
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rarndt01

Guest
I watched all three debates and I must say they were pretty much even. But Senator Kerry spoke on his position about supporting a woman’s right to have and abortion and allowing gay marriage. Here was pretty much what he said.

“I know the Catholic arch bishop is against these issues and personally as a Catholic I am as well. But do I have the right to IMPOSE my personal beliefs upon Americans of differing views? No, I don’t”

I think Senator Kerry made a good point. Say a candidate was a Jehovah Witness. Would it be right for him to impose his religious beliefs upon ALL AMERICANS? For example, he would say that all Trinitarian churches will be closed and only monotheistic churches, like Jehovah Witnesses churches will be permitted to be open. Would that be fair? No, for you want the freedom to worship as you CHOOSE.

But you say, Ron you are exaggerating? Not really. For that’s the SAME feeling gays and woman wanting abortion feel towards those who would impose their wishes upon them if they were elected. What do you say?

Ron from Ohio
 
If Senator Kery were truly “personally opposed”, but didn’t want to impose his views on others, he could abstain from pro-abortion votes which, as a Catholic, he could not and should not support. But no, Kerry has voted FOR abortion. He has voted against the partial-birth abortion ban, which places him in the category of being an extreme pro-abortion politician. The vast majority of this country find that practice abominable, which is NEVER medically necessary, but Kerry voted for it keeping it. A “personally opposed” individual who didn’t want to impose his beliefs could avoid speaking to NARAL and other pro-abortion groups, but Kerry enthusiastically seeks their support. Bottom line: despite what he claims, I don’t see any opposition of his “personal opposition”—where’s the opposition? Kerry is pro-abortion, and his record makes that very, very clear.

Also, one doesn’t have to be religious to be against abortion. The right to life is listed along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you know, as an inalienable right. Any biologist can tell you when life begins—at the moment of conception. Science does not support the pro-aborts, so they’ve backed off the “when does life begin?” question (because the answer was unfavorable to them) and now go into “rights” and the definition of “personhood”.

Your argument doesn’t hold up to much scrutiny. It’s all relative and wishy-washy, and could be applied to the issue of slavery as well. “I’m personally opposed to slavery, but I don’t want to impose my views on anyone”. Or, “I’m personally opposed to rape, but I wouldn’t want to impose my views on anyone.” Szheesh…how cowardly.
 
Our position on abortion is not because we are Christians; We are Christians, in part, because our position on abortion.
If it were any other situation where one group of persons were murdering another, this debate would be nonexistant.
Furthermore,the people who are performing and practicing abortion are imposing their beliefs upon their own children.
I think it is more noble to impose one’s morality on another rather than one’s immorality, if you want to put it that way.
 
Also, Ron, let’s get real here: you give, as a hypothetical, " Say a candidate was a Jehovah Witness. Would it be right for him to impose his religious beliefs upon ALL AMERICANS? For example, he would say that all Trinitarian churches will be closed and only monotheistic churches, like Jehovah Witnesses churches will be permitted to be open".

What nonsense. Are you actually going to pretend that this is a possibility? For starters, this proposal would run right square against the non-establishment provision of the First Amendment, and has zero, nada, zilch chance of being a real issue. Good grief…Abortion is real, and is an intrinsically evil act. People can be judged, and will be judged, on their positions and actions regarding it.
 
Ron:

The problem with Kerry is that he’s reducing abortion to a religious issue. That’s where he errs.

Abortion is wrong from the basis of reason.

All we have to do is examine what we are, what the being to be aborted is and what abortion does. If we do this, we can conclude, without appealing to the Catholic faith, that abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being, and thus, ought to be made illegal.

We can arrive at this conclusion without reference to any religious tradition since it is based on the universal truths about human nature that all of us possess.

Consider murder, rape and theft. Sure, the Catholic Church calls them mortal sins. So should we permit them? To use’s Kerry’s flawed logic, yeah!

I think you would agree that such choices ought to be made illegal not because they fundamentally at odds with the Catholic faith, but because they are fundamentally at odds with our humanity, which any one of us, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, can recognize.
 
rarndt01 said:
“I know the Catholic arch bishop is against these issues and personally as a Catholic I am as well. But do I have the right to IMPOSE my personal beliefs upon Americans of differing views? No, I don’t”
Click to expand...

I think his position is a bunch of pandering nonsense. Politicians impose their beliefs on people all the time on issues much less morally significant than abortion without apparent regret or moral gnashing of teeth.

When they have beliefs on the minimum wage, affirmative action, military involvement, taxes, etc. etc. they seem to have no problem voting their beliefs even if they are not shared by others. Why shouldn’t we all have a right to “choose” whether to pay taxes, whether to go to war, whether to drive 90 mph, and a million other things that those in power “believe”.

Yet something as obviously evil as the killing of a defenseless human life seems to be too nuanced for them to act on their beliefs. The evil of abortion is not a “religious belief” it is a violation of natural and moral law.

Kerry is full of rocks.
 
I didn’t say it, Senator Kerry did. So put down the wood and the gasoline. I’m not ready to be burned at the stake just yet.

I’m just saying, he has a point. Does a political candidate, if elected, have the right to IMPOSE his religious beliefs on ALL AMERICANS who do not feel the same as he does? That would be dictorial and not democratic.

The Jehovah Witness analogy is perfect. If I were a political candidate and a die hard JW, would I have the right to close down all Trinitarian churches after I was elected? Answer the question. When one becomes the leader of a COUNTRY, one must put PERSONAL issues aside and consider the freedoms of ALL AMERICANS and not just a select group…

Ron from Ohio
 
40.png
rarndt01:
I didn’t say it, Senator Kerry did. So put down the wood and the gasoline. I’m not ready to be burned at the stake just yet.

I’m just saying, he has a point. Does a political candidate, if elected, have the right to IMPOSE his religious beliefs on ALL AMERICANS who do not feel the same as he does? That would be dictorial and not democratic…
Click to expand...
Nothing personal, my Ohio brother. It’s Kerry who is drawing our wrath, not you. 😃

But I agree that the problem is equating the protection of innocent human life with a “religious belief” on par with the JW analogy. Opposition to abortion imposes no restrictions on anyone’s religious freedom.

Unless the argument you are making is that if you religious beliefs permit you to kill, the government should not infringe upon your right to do so. That seems to be our beef with radical Islam, no?
 
40.png
rarndt01:
Does a political candidate, if elected, have the right to IMPOSE his religious beliefs on ALL AMERICANS who do not feel the same as he does? That would be dictorial and not democratic.
Click to expand...
And is abortion a mere religious issue? No. Not any more than murder, rape and incest are.
 
40.png
rarndt01:
I’m just saying, he has a point. Does a political candidate, if elected, have the right to IMPOSE his religious beliefs on ALL AMERICANS who do not feel the same as he does? That would be dictorial and not democratic.
Click to expand...
Yes he does, as would a JW. If the public disagreed with him they would not elect him.

Also, as a single senator, he can not impose anything on all americans. He only has one vote.

Which to be a Catholic, he should abstain if his argument was true. Instead he goes against his faith and votes for abortion and publicly supports “gay rights”.

And what about embyronic stem cell research, he is for that.

Mr Kerry is not a Catholic, he just plays one on TV. He is in the same boat many people out there.

He and others are into this moral relativism. This is argument he makes and you seem to buy into is the height of it.
 
Ron,

In the same way, put down the wood and gasoline and don’t fire up the defenders.

This is indeed our system. A law is by definition an imposition of SOME morality upon ALL people.

One answer in our system is not to elect such an individual. There are also checks and balances regarding legislating FOR a church or AGAINST free speech (which could be religious).

So another answer is to elect legislators to make laws to protect us from judges who could use the law to further their own agendas.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
…Mr Kerry is not a Catholic, he just plays one on TV.
Click to expand...
That, my friend, is a great line. 👍 We should make that into a bumper sticker. Or a TV ad… :hmmm:
 
Yes abortion is a religious issue. For church law states it is wrong to murder or take a life. So you are wrong.We live in a society where masses of people are NOT Christian at all. If we impose our religious values BY FORCE we are just as guilty of those in Salem, Mass. who unjustly tried innocent women for being witches. It was based on religious law, The same for the crusades and the Spanish inquisition. We USED RELIGION as a force to reign over others who did not believe as we do.

We as Christians do not know the ways of peace. We want to destroy those who differ with us and relish that we are the ones who is on the side of God. The early Christians were never involved in Rome’s politics. Nor did they spill the blood of their fellow man.

A true leader of our country must consider the needs of ALL PEOPLE. whether WHITE, BLACK OR RED SKIN. Whether heterosexual, homosexual, Christian or atheist. Whether Buddhists, Muslim or Christian. We have NO RIGHT to deny freedom of choice. If so we are no better than dictators in a foreign land. Has not our white man’s religion done enough harm in murdering thousands of American Indians and enslaving thousands of blacks for slavery. All because we were told they were “heathen” and we were "God’s children.

I believe in Martin King’s thoughts, that all men are God’s creation and ALL should be free to express themselves as AMERICANS. God bless America!

Ron from Ohio
 
40.png
rarndt01:
I’m just saying, he has a point. Does a political candidate, if elected, have the right to IMPOSE his religious beliefs on ALL AMERICANS who do not feel the same as he does? That would be dictorial and not democratic.
Click to expand...
As someone professing to be a Christian not only does he have the right, he has an obligation. And it’s not his personal religious beliefs he’d be “imposing”. He has an obligation, as a Christian, to promote the absolute truth of God. Personal freedoms can never override God’s truth. That’s what Kerry would have us believe is acceptable.
The Jehovah Witness analogy is perfect. If I were a political candidate and a die hard JW, would I have the right to close down all Trinitarian churches after I was elected? Answer the question. When one becomes the leader of a COUNTRY, one must put PERSONAL issues aside and consider the freedoms of ALL AMERICANS and not just a select group…
Click to expand...
I agree with the poster who said this wasn’t a good analogy. You’d need to come up with a scenerio that’s at least remotely possible. Your example isn’t. It’s a non-issue.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
What the whole issue boils down to is protecting the right of mothers to kill their children. I honestly can’t see how anyone can think that should be a right. It’s insane!

In Christ,
Nancy
 
40.png
rarndt01:
We have NO RIGHT to deny freedom of choice. If so we are no better than dictators in a foreign land. Has not our white man’s religion done enough harm in murdering thousands of American Indians and enslaving thousands of blacks for slavery. All because we were told they were “heathen” and we were "God’s children.
Click to expand...
Well Ron, I take back what I said. Apparently you were not just communicating Kerry’s position. In fact, compared to you, Kerry seems downright pious.

You have issues.
 
40.png
rarndt01:
We have NO RIGHT to deny freedom of choice
Click to expand...
So why shouldn’t I have the right to kill you? (And I mean that in the nicest possible way 🙂 )
 
Ron,

You wrote: “Yes abortion is a religious issue. For church law states it is wrong to murder or take a life. So you are wrong.We live in a society where masses of people are NOT Christian at all.”

So, by your logic, we should have no laws against murder and theft—after all, Jewish and Christian laws are against those practices. Libel is also against Jewish and Christian law (thou shalt not bear false witness), so would you be in favor of dumpint those laws too? I’m sure I can think of others…

Actually, despite your claim that “masses” of people aren’t Christian, surveys show that the vast majority of Americans (something like 85%) describe themselves as Christians. Our governmental system is informed by Judeo/Christian ethics, like it or not (just read the letters, etc of the Founding Fathers. Heck, just read the Declaration of Independence). Your argument lacks substance. No, Kerry does NOT have a point.
 
40.png
rarndt01:
Yes abortion is a religious issue. For church law states it is wrong to murder or take a life.
Click to expand...
Well Ron, “Church law” says that it’s wrong to rape. “Church law” says it’s wrong to steal. As, yes, as you’ve stated, “Church law” says it’s wrong to murder.

Wait a minute…

Rape, theft and murder are criminalized in the United States, are they not? By your “Church law” reasoning, these are religious issues. And, as you’ve asserted, religious issues shouldn’t be imposed on people with different religious views.

Well then. If abortion is a religious issue, and it was right to decriminalize it, then because rape, theft and murder are religious issues, it would be right to decriminalize them.

Still think abortion is nothing more than a religious issue?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top