"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...

He also believes he doesn't have the right to use the force of law to
make others live by his beliefs.


Then he apparently doesn't have the courage of his convictions, assuming
he
has any core beliefs in the first place that go beyond getting elected.
We're not talking about tax policy or which state gets a new highway
here.
He claims to believe that innocent children are being slaughtered, but
chooses to do nothing to stop it, hiding behind the religous freedom of
others to commit murder.

You just assumed the pertinent point. Kerry, and apparently you,
believe that a fetus is a human child. If we all agreed to that, there
would be no abortion debate. Kerry realizes that others don't believe
that a fetus is a child. You don't seem to realize that. Maybe that's
what you want to force others to believe.

I started out by pointing out that Kerry's position is inconsistent.
Interpreting his statements, he believes that abortion is murder. But
murder is OK, as long as the murderer thinks it's OK. I don't know how else
to interpret his so-called beliefs.

I do oppose any abortion after the fetus is capable of living on its own
without extraordinary efforts and equipment. In effect, that means
after about 6 or 7 months of gestation.

This must be the least consistent and least logical point of view in the
whole debate. "about 6 or 7 months"? Where does 5 1/2 months fit into
that? What about a week before? What's wrong with killing it at 8 months
if the mother wants to? It's her body, isn't it? Suddenly at 6 or 7 months
you have the right to impose your will?

Up to that point, refusing to allow a woman to abort is making her a
slave to your beliefs. Come to think of it, that's probably the
motivation of many. Kinder,kirche,kuchen - now who was it said that?

I'd call it requiring a person to be responsible for their actions, but
there's precious little of that going around these days.

As another poster has mentioned, this argument is not amenable to
reason, as it's based on opinion on both sides. How about we drop it?

OK. You don't post any more and I wont respond to your posts.

todd