Todd Fatheree wrote:

"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.

Very simple. He thinks it's murder, but the courts and the Congress and the
several states seem to disagree with him on this point, so what's he
supposed to do about it? Go out and shoot people?

No. But if he believes it to be murder you would think he would at least be
actively against it and trying to outlaw it, not saying in effect that the
murders occurring all around him are just none of his business.

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?

The courts in the US have ruled "first trimester" unless there are
extenuating circumstances. The state legislatures have sometimes set more
lenient standards. It is their job to make such decisions and they have
made them. If you want the line set elsewhere or abolished, then either
come up with an argument so effective that it persuades the Congress and
the States to amend the Constitution or persuades the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe v. Wade.....

In case you missed it, a few days ago we took a big step in that direction if
we can keep W. on track and boot Spectere.

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.

You're right, she really should have learned karate well enough to stand off
the four guys who held her down while the fifth one "invited" that sweet
little baby into her. Damned irresponsible of her not to have developed
super powers.

I am not one that says it has anything to do with personal responsibility. But
you have to notice that it certainly wasn't the baby's fault and he or she (or
they as the case may be) are the only ones in the whole sad senerio that are
being asked to forfeit their lives.


Dave Hall