Kerry urges cooperation to reduce abortions

[ckramer]

WASHINGTON -- Senator John F. Kerry yesterday called for a new national commitment to reduce the number of abortions, saying that both sides on the abortion debate can reach ``common ground" on the sharply divisive cultural issue that was prominent in his defeat in the 2004 presidential election.

In an intimate speech laced with references to his Catholic upbringing, Kerry chastised abortion-rights supporters and anti-abortion activists for the ``overly partisan" tone that has polarized the nation. Despite their intense opposition, Kerry said, there are areas of agreement -- such as tax credits for adoptive parents, more government aid for working mothers, and health insurance for everyone.

``Even as a supporter of Roe v. Wade, I am compelled to acknowledge that the language both sides use on this subject can be, unfortunately, misleading and unconstructive," Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, told an audience at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. ``Instead of making enemies, we need to make progress."


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/19/kerry_urges_cooperation_to_reduce_abortions/


================

We need to give mothers and kids financial support in having more babies.

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

1. There he goes again, WAFFLING...

...even though he does make all the sense in the world. The idiot RWers will use this bit of nuanced thinking against him as well...

[sandnsea]

3. It's the article - not Kerry

Aaaaall the way at the end -

But Nancy Keenan, NARAL president, noted that Kerry's record speaks for itself. ``As someone who consistently supported a woman's right to choose and has the voting record to prove it, Senator Kerry is acknowledging what NARAL Pro-Choice America has been saying for years: This decision is a personal one between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her God," Keenan said.

[Kelvin Mace]

21. Would this be the same NARAL

that endorsed Holy Joe Lieberman?

NARAL is dead to me.

[cally]

44. I've refuse to give to NARAL since

they endorsed Lieberman. I once sent in donations but not any more.

[StoryTeller]

4. What are you talking about?

He wasn't waffling. He was saying the same thing he's always said. I haven't seen the news article mentioned in the OP yet, but you should read the actual TEXT of his speech before you make any assumption about waffles...or pancakes...or any other breakfast food. ;)

Here's a good link. It's a great speech.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4212

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

5. Forgot the SARCASM tag.

[StoryTeller]

8. Oh, SO sorry...

Sorry about that. Normally I catch it with or without the tag. Have to work on my sarcasm antennae, I guess. :)

On edit: But do read the speech anyway, if you haven't yet. It's terrific!

[blm]

9. I do that all the time.

But, most people here know me for being a sarcastic bitch ALL the time. heh ;)

[Kelvin Mace]

23. He is making noises just like Hilary

"We must reduce the number of abortions"

Translation: I am happy to support more restrictions on abortion to get elected.

From the speech:

I think they are questions any Christian needs to wrestle with:

2. How will we protect the weakest in our midst—innocent unborn children? How will our nation resist what Pope John Paul II calls a “culture of death”? How can we keep our nation from turning to violence to solve some of its most difficult problems—abortion to deal with difficult pregnancies; the death penalty to combat crime; euthanasia and assisted suicide to deal with the burdens of age, illness, and disability; and war to address international disputes?

This is classic religously insane propaganda.

Thanks to this nonsense, we have situations like this:

http://bitingbeaver.blogspot.com/2006/09/morality-clauses-ec-and-broken-condoms.html

Friday night the condom broke. But I didn't panic, I thought to myself, with a huge sigh of relief, "Wow, thank goodness it's over the counter now!" and I fell asleep (since there are absolutely NO 24 hour pharmacies within 100 miles of me). Saturday morning I awoke and phoned the pharmacy. I asked them about EC and was told that they won't be stocking it until January 1st, until then it was still by prescription only.

Soooo, I phoned my doctors office which informed me that the office was closed and that I had to call the local hospital and have her paged in order to reach her on the weekend. So I called her and had them page her. A little while later she called back and I answered the phone immediately. She sounded tired and really grumpy; I apologized for having to page her for a thing like this and then asked her if I could get a prescription for EC. She explained that I needed to go to the Emergency Room to get it.

My heart fell, the ER has a 100$ co-pay attached to it. "Well," I thought to myself, "that's still better than the price of a kid" so I called the Emergency Room to verify the information and to ask what their procedures were. When I called the hospital they transferred me to the ER. I asked the nurse what the procedure was for EC and what would be the best time to come down there (I didn't want to wind up behind 3 critical people and end up waiting for 12 hours). The nurse responded in a small, questioning voice, "EC?" and so I explained. "Yes, Emergency Contraception. Plan B. You know, right?"

"Oh" she replies. "Hold on just a sec" and she puts me on hold.

A few moments later another nurse answers the phone. "Can I help you" he says.

"Yes," I reply "My name is BB and I was told that I need to come here to get a scrip for Plan B."

"Oh," he says, "Can you hang on a second?"

"Sure" I reply, becoming decidedly nervous.

He puts me on hold and I sit on the edge of the bed frowning and fiddling with a pen. I wait on hold for 15 minutes before he finally comes back on.

"Have you talked to your doctor?" he asks.

"Yes, I talked to her this morning and she told me to go to the ER" I reply.

"Oh, so she won't prescribe it for you?" he asks.

This possibility hadn't occurred to me. I just assumed that the ER was standard procedure, "Hmmm" I say, "Well, I guess not. It's not just standard procedure to go to the ER?"

"No, not really. We don't really have this happen much." He replies and then he says, "Well I called the pharmacy to ask them because I had heard that it was going over the counter. They told me that they won't sell it til the first of the year" I finished the sentence with him and explained that I had called the pharmacy first thing this morning and was told the very same thing.

"Well see," he begins, his voice dropping a little, "the problem is that you have to meet the doctor’s criteria before he'll dispense it to you."

"Criteria?" I question.

"Well," the nurse sounds decidedly nervous as though what he really wanted to do was hang up the phone completely, "Yes, his criteria. I mean...ummm...well, are you ok? Is there any, ummm....trauma?" he asks me.

My face changes expression and I hurry to explain, "No, no" I said, "No. I haven't been raped. This was consensual sex."

"Oh..." he trails off.

I wait expectantly.

"Well, ummm....*clears throat*...So you haven't been raped?" he asks again.

"No. I have not been raped. The condom broke". I state, becoming very frustrated at this point and wondering what the hell is going on.

"Ok, well ummm....Are you married?" he mumbles the words so low I can barely hear them.

Suddenly I get this image of the poor nurse standing at the hospital reading from a cue card that was given to him by a doctor.

"No." I state plainly. "I am not married. I've been in a relationship for several years and I have three children, I don't want a fourth." I respond tersely.

"Oh, I see." He says and then he hurries on, "Well, see. *I* understand. I want you to know that I understand what you're saying. But see, the problem is that we have 4 doctors here right now but only one of them ever writes EC prescriptions. But see, the thing is that he'll interview you and see if you meet his criteria. Now, I called the pharmacy but I also talked to him and well....*clears throat*....you can come down and try to get it. You know, if you meet his criteria he'll give you a prescription, I mean, there's really no harm in trying." the nurse trails off, his voice falters as I realize what I'm being told.

I opened the phone book again and called the Urgent Care in my county. Who knows, maybe they'll do it for me. "No," the nurse said, "We don't prescribe the abortion pill here".

"No, wait I'm not asking for the abortion pill. I'm asking for EC!" I say, "It's not the same thing."

"Well, we use the words interchangeably here. Sorry, we don't prescribe it". She all but races to get off the phone with me.

[CTyankee]

34. EC is available at Planned Parenthood clinics in CT

It is not difficult to obtain from PPC. That scenario would not happen if she had called PPC!

BTW, Hillary's views on reducing abortions by increasing access to family planning and sex education is the same as Planned Parenthood's. I have read her views extensively and they are perfetly in line with PP.

[Kelvin Mace]

98. if you read the entire post

at the link provided, you will note that the poster did contact Planned Parenthood in Ohio.

As to Hilary, she to has started making noises to please the Right, specifically about "reducing abortions", plus idiocy about computer games and flag burning.

If she makes the noises just to get votes, I have no use for her. A person who does may like to call it pragmatism, but I call it dishonesty. And a dishonest person will sell you out when the stakes are high enough.

[CTyankee]

102. I didn't see the other stuff you saw. I just saw her ideas about

reducing abortions. Since I worked for PPC for 6 years I know its stand on reducing abortions and what she said was in line with that: more access to family planning and sexuality education. I truly don't know what's wrong with that! The right wing will have nothing to do with either one!

This is common sense!!!

[Kelvin Mace]

118. That's the problem

people see one issue, and ignore the rest.

Hilary wants laws regualting gane content and favors laws protecting the flag. She also made the same noises about the need to reduce abortion, a code phrase to the Right that she is prepared to accept further restrictions on abortion.

Now she may never vote that way, but if she panders to the Right, she is not someone I will vote for in a primary.

[CTyankee]

140. Fine, but this thread is about reproductive choice, one issue

among others. Of course, we have to evaluate candidates on more than one issue. My point here is only that Hillary has consistenly been with Planned Parenthood on reproductive rights and reproductive health issues.

The flag legislation is not an issue that could mean life or death for my daughters and granddaughters. That is important when I evaluate Hillary and her range of stances on other issues.

[Kelvin Mace]

148. But Hilary has started making noises

about "reducing abortions", a code phrase on the Right for more abortion restrictions. If this was the only time Hillary made such a noise, I could overlook it. But when taken with her stance on the flag burning amendment, and her sudden fascination with the morality of computer video games, it raises lots of red flags.

If she's willing to pass legislation contrary to liberal/progressive values on flag burning and computer games in order to get votes from the Right, then abortion is hardly sacrosanct. I consider both of these to be First Amendment issues, and First Amendment issues are crucial to our freedom. Without free speech, you cannot defend any other liberty.

[CTyankee]

154. I agree that we have important First Amendment issues

and I cannot speak to HRC's policy views on those two instances you cite because I don't know as much about them as I do her views on reproductive rights. I think she offered a legislative alternative to the flag amendment as her way of deflecting a bad amendment to the Constitution that would attempt to water down the First Amendment. What did she say about video games? I'd be interested in getting educated about it.

I truly don't believe her use of "reducing abortions" is a bad thing. She has always been prochoice as has Bill. During his administration they never wavered on the issue and indeed strengthened women's clinics across the country with the FACES legislation and appointing prochoice justices to the SC. They also have a daughter. They are old enough to remember the bad old days before Roe. If using the words "reducing abortions" and meaning more access to contraception (including EC) and sex education is what she means, then she is certainly not against reproductve rights, or near to being against them.

[Kelvin Mace]

158. Hilary got her knickers in a twist over

"violent video games" and was holding hearing to determine whether government regulation was called for.

With Geroge Bush destroying the Republic she wants to waste time on this??!!

When the term "reducing abortions" is used in a speech, and contraceptives and sex ed are absent, you are looking at more restrictions.

Now it is entirely possible that HRC is saying this to attract votes from the Right with no intention of actually following through. Unfortunately, this is NO different than what Bush did when selling himself as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000. We do not need more politicans like this.

Also, on the whole idea of Kerry speaking at Pepperdine, I just posted this here and on my blog:

Kerry was invited by Pepperdine to discuss his faith. This was an invitation that should have been declined with the explanation that faith is a private matter and not one open for public discussion. The only people who publicly made a big deal about their faith and how they prayed were the Pharisees, and the world has enough Pharisees running around as it is.

Lecturing the faithful about their Christian duty is the responsibility of RELIGIOUS leaders, not POLITICIANS. The main reason we are in the mess we are in right now is that we have a "president" who thinks he's the freakin' Messiah!

You don't stop the destruction of the separation of Church and State by injecting more religion into the debate.

[rodeodance]

141. I choose to believe that Hil. C. is sincere in her desire to reduce the

number of abortions.

If pregnancies can be prevented--by whatever means, (education, contraceptives,ect)----then she and others are on the right tract.

[LostinVA]

109. And HRC's views are ones I agree with

We need more sex ed, more access to free contraceptives. All we have to do is look at other industrialized countries: lower STDs, abortions, etc. This country is sp falsely Puritanical is makes me sick.

Morally, I do not believe abortion is taking a life. However, no one should have any medical procedure unless they really need it... and everyone does have moral right to education about their bodies, and access to free or low-cost contraceptives.

[karynnj]

42. Did you notice his voting record?

[blm]

60. He put up the list from Bishops in order to ANSWER with the LIBERAL reason

found in Jesus's teachings.

EXACTLY what lawmakers of faith should be doing, instead of moving towards the RW version of the Bible, Kerry moved his RW audience to the left.

[greccogirl]

127. This is why when I needed birth control

I never relied on one method. When I was single I was on the pill, used a diaphram AND condoms. Condoms as anyone who has ever used them know, aren't that reliable. Not only do they break, but those slippery little suckers have a bad habit of coming off.....................

[Kelvin Mace]

133. The lady who posted at Biting Beaver

could not tolerate hormonal contraceptives or IUDs/diaphrams. That leaves only condoms.

[rodeodance]

11. I do not think he is waffling. Geesh.

[KingFlorez]

19. How is he waffling?

[politicasista]

36. I think he was being sarcastic n/t

[karynnj]

40. The article in the Boston Globe made clear that Kerry's statement

was consistent with his position since he entered politics. Just as in 2004, he is in favor of Ror vs Wade and keeping abortions legal. This is exactly his position in 2004.

I can see from your comment that he makes sense that this is not bashing. It is however not WAFFLING which is refusing to take a position or going back and forth. He's always had personal resevations and noted them and he has a 100% voting record over 25 years! You can't get more consistent

[wisteria]

105. We shouldn't allow them to get away with painting this issue as

black and white. We/Kerry has the sensible approach to this issue. We need to point out the Republicans don't want to resolve this issue because they take in millions in donations from people thinking they really want to end the procedure.

[blm]

2. Pro-lifers SHOULD work to REDUCING abortions through EDUCATION

Comprehensive sex education. Instead, they let GOP politicians manipulate the debate rhetorically instead of applying practical measures that would actually reduce the number of abortions.

The LANGUAGE does need to change.

[BOSSHOG]

Pro-lifers don't need no stinking education

They wallow in their ignorance. They think if they force their kids to pledge to remain virgins that all will be right in their "christian" world. "Conservatives" - pride in ignorance!

[Demeter]

6. Why the Hell Don't These Men Worry About Waging Peace and Prosperity

and leave the childbirth to us? God damn it! It takes nine months, during which the economy may crash and burn, and then 18 years after (at least) so we need some goddamn stability--and UNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE!!!! And while we are on the subject, unfettered, inexpensive contraceptives!

Give us a world in which children and their mothers are wanted, nurtured and thrive, and you'll see that pesky abortion rate reduced to practically nothing.

DO THE CORRECT THING AND LEAVE WOMEN TO DO THEIRS!!!!

[blm]

10. Your point is in his speech. It's a liberal manifesto for people of faith.

It sounds like Kucinich could have made this speech.


“Service and Faith”
Senator John Kerry
Pepperdine University
Malibu, California

September 18, 2006
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

Thank you. It’s wonderful to be here. For some time, I have looked forward to this opportunity to come here to talk about my faith, and the role of faith in public life. And I’m very grateful to Pepperdine—an institution explicitly founded to shine the light of God’s truth through the service of its graduates—for giving me this opportunity.

There will always be those bent on corrupting our political discourse, particularly where religion is involved. But I learned how important it is to make certain people have a deeper understanding of the values that shape me and the faith that sustains me. Despite this New Englanders’ past reticence of talking publicly about my faith, I learned that if I didn’t fill in the picture myself, others would draw the caricature for me. I will never let that happen again—and neither should you, because no matter your party, your ideology, or your faith, we are all done a disservice when the debate is reduced to ugly and untrue caricatures.

I was born, baptized, and raised a Catholic. Needless to say, my first and formative sense of religion came from my parents, Richard and Rosemary. My mother was a Protestant but went out of her way to see that I learned my catechism, attended Church, and prepared for First Communion. Both my parents taught me early on that we are all put on this earth for something greater than ourselves. Later, I was an altar boy at my Church. My parents taught me my faith and they taught me to live by it.

I went to a high school called St. Paul’s, an Episcopal school where we attended chapel every morning and twice on Sundays in addition to the Catholic service in town which a group of us would go to. I studied religious studies and as you would imagine at a school called St. Paul’s, became more than familiar with St. Paul’s letters to just about everybody.

The Catholic church that I grew up with didn’t focus on scripture the way we do today. The Mass was in Latin. But with the Second Vatican Council, that changed. Now, revised prayers for the Sacraments and other parts of the liturgy use Biblical language almost entirely. It elevates both our practice and our understanding of our faith. And despite our continued historical and theological differences, it has helped to emphasize what unites Christian churches rather than what divides them. The long and short of it is that today we are far more “Bible”-focused and knowledgeable based on several clear principles, chief among them the centrality of Jesus.

I confronted my own mortality head-on during the Vietnam War, where faith was as much a part of my daily life as the battle itself. But I have to say that in retrospect my relationship with God was a dependent one—a “God—get me through this and I’ll be good” – relationship. As I became disillusioned with the war, my faith was also put to the test. For me, war was a difficult place for faith to grow. Some of my closest friends were killed. I saw things that disturb me to this day. Theologians often talk about “the problem of evil,” the difficulty of explaining why terrible and senseless events are part of God’s plan. In combat, you confront the problem of evil in an up-front and personal way that is hard for others to fully understand.

So, yes, I prayed hard while I was in Vietnam and I made it back, but the experience, the “problem of evil,” took some time to reconcile. When I returned stateside, I went through a period of alienation. I was inspired by the Christian moral witness of people like Martin Luther King, Jr. in the civil rights movement, Reverend William Sloane Coffin in the peace movement and other voices of Christian conscience. But still I was searching — somewhat spiritually adrift, unsure of my relationship with God and the Church.

Within the Catholic Church, we talk about being born Catholic—but as in any faith community, there’s a moment when you first consciously choose whether to fully participate in your heritage, or look elsewhere. For me that came a number of years later after the war.

For twelve years I wandered in the wilderness, went through a divorce and struggled with questions about my direction. Then suddenly and movingly, I had a revelation about the connection between the work I was doing as a public servant and my formative teachings. Indeed, the scriptures provided a firmer guide about values applied to life – many of the things you are wrestling with now today.

I remember how difficult it was to be your age – so many decisions to work out, such a tangle of choices and possibilities, whose consequences seem unknowable – and yet life-shaping. For you here at Pepperdine, it’s a time when you’re exploring your commitment to God, embarking on a journey to figure out how to lead a good life, how to translate your values—who you love, what you are passionate about, how you worship—how you translate that into the daily fabric of your existence.

One of my favorite passages from scripture, a familiar story from the Gospel According to Mark 10:35-45, sheds a lot of light for me on how to translate my faith into action.

The Apostles James and John ask their teacher Jesus if they can sit, one at his right hand and one at his left hand, and bask in his glory. They want to be seen as first among the disciples. And Jesus tells them, while they can drink from his cup and share in the baptism, the special position they want isn’t his to grant—it’s only for those who are up to the task.

When the other ten disciples heard about James and John’s request, they were angry. And so Jesus gathered them all together and said to them, “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to be first among you must be servant of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

This is the third time Jesus’ disciples have misunderstood the nature of their discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. And I suppose you could say that James and John are trying to become the first political appointees in the New Testament—trying to get special favors for their proximity to power. But Jesus responds with an essential lesson. He contrasts greatness in the Kingdom of God with Roman political power. While greatness in the Roman Empire is based on brute force—lording it over those less fortunate for the worst possible reason—simply because you can, greatness in the Kingdom of God is based on humble service, on being servant to all.”

Those lines in Mark had a profound impact on me: “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve.” Well, I consider public leadership to be a form of Christian service and an expression of my faith. I believe the most important teaching of the Gospels is that it is not enough just to say one believes in Jesus. Believing in Jesus requires action—it requires a bona fide effort—commitment to live in the example of Jesus and nowhere in my judgment is the expectation of service more clearly stated than in Matthew 25:34:

“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,

I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.”

So it is important for me to share with you how we might move from the example of Jesus as a servant into addressing the pressing needs of our time. The Catholic Bishops in their 2004 election guide provided great spiritual wisdom and guidance as they set forth a series of questions about expectations in public life.

I think they are questions any Christian needs to wrestle with:

1. After September 11, how can we build not only a safer world, but a better world—more just, more secure, more peaceful, more respectful of human life and dignity?

2. How will we protect the weakest in our midst—innocent unborn children? How will our nation resist what Pope John Paul II calls a “culture of death”? How can we keep our nation from turning to violence to solve some of its most difficult problems—abortion to deal with difficult pregnancies; the death penalty to combat crime; euthanasia and assisted suicide to deal with the burdens of age, illness, and disability; and war to address international disputes?

3. How will we address the tragic fact that more than 30,000 children die every day as a result of hunger, international debt, and lack of development around the world, as well as the fact that the younger you are, the more likely you are to be poor here in the richest nation on earth?

4. How can our nation help parents raise their children with respect for life, sound moral values, a sense of hope, and an ethic of stewardship and responsibility? How can our society defend the central institution of marriage and better support families in their moral roles and responsibilities, offering them real choices and financial resources to obtain quality education and decent housing?

5. How will we address the growing number of families and individuals without affordable and accessible health care? How can health care better protect human life and respect human dignity?

6. How will our society combat continuing prejudice, overcome hostility toward immigrants and refugees, and heal the wounds of racism, religious bigotry, and other forms of discrimination?

7. How will our nation pursue the values of justice and peace in a world where injustice is common, desperate poverty widespread, and peace is too often overwhelmed by violence?

8. What are the responsibilities and limitations of families, community organizations, markets, and government? How can these elements of society work together to overcome poverty, pursue the common good, care for creations, and overcome injustice?

9. When should our nation use, or avoid the use of, military force—for what purpose, under what authority, and at what human cost?

10. How can we join with other nations to lead the world to greater respect for human life and dignity, religious freedom and democracy, economic justice and care for God’s creation?

I believe these questions can be gathered around four issues where people of faith from every background can work together with other people of good will towards public policies that contribute to the common good.

The first and perhaps most obvious common challenge is to take practical steps to address global issues of poverty, disease, and despair.

The cares of the poor and the troubled should be the focus of all our work. Today extreme poverty shackles one sixth of the globe’s population, one-fifth lack access to safe drinking water. Here in America twenty one percent of our children live in poverty. Eleven million under 21 don’t have health insurance. Thirty thousand children worldwide perish each day because of hunger and disease attributable to poverty.

A few weeks ago, we passed the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. And, amidst the howling wind and rushing flood waters, you could practically feel Americans’ emotional recognition—our shock—at just how far we still have to climb to fulfill our Christian responsibility to care for the worst off among us. Jesus told us “Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me,” but when the great flood of our time came, we weren’t ready. Interestingly, the most rapid and effective response came from the faith community, but as a country, we left people to die on rooftops and in hospital beds. The failure should sting and it should shame all of us, but it should also bring a renewed sense of mission: We’ve lapsed in our covenant between the people and the government, between rich and poor people and between rich and poor countries, that nobody should be left behind. No American, no country, no human being.

You – each of you — can do something about this and get involved in a multitude of ways including joining something like the ONE Campaign. And for those who ask the inevitable question, ‘why does that matter to me here at home as a citizen of our country?’ With the right political leadership, we can end extreme poverty in your lifetime if we commit the resources to do it.

Evangelical Christians have honored the best traditions of Christianity and of patriotism in tirelessly fighting to end the genocide in Darfur. I’ve often referred to the words of the Epistle of St. James 2:17: “faith without works is dead”—and Christian work in Darfur—day in and day out to make sure that “never again” isn’t just a convenient lie we tell ourselves to sleep better at night- is the embodiment of that Christian—of that American—ideal.

Christians like Rick Warren are also working to fight AIDS. How can we sit idly by when this plague of our time sweeps across the world? How can we not do everything in our power to make sure that our life-saving treatments are spread far and wide to those in need? There are forty million cases today, and last year 3 million people died from AIDS. Jesus did not “heal the sick” only if they had the money to pay for it, only if they could afford antiretroviral drugs—no, he sought out people in need. And we need to do the same today.

A second common challenge arises from the deep concern virtually all people of faith are enjoined to maintain toward sustaining and protecting God’s first creation. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians 10:20 says, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything on it.” The Prophet Isaiah (66:2) says, “has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?”

These days we face problems on a biblical scale—floods, storms, plagues, the destruction of entire cities. And it is my belief that confronting manmade climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges we face.

Evangelicals talk about “creation-care” — that any damage that we do to God’s world is an offense against God. God called us to be stewards of the earth and its creatures, and since most of the climate change problem is human induced, its’ pretty clear that we haven’t done that good of a job. The warnings are loud and clear for all to see—rising waters, melting caps, storms of ever-greater proportions, and ironclad scientific evidence. Surely this is an issue where people of faith can come together and demand action. I can assure you, when I cast a vote in the Senate on environmental issues, I try to act as a steward of the earth.

A third area where we can find common ground is on one of the most emotional cultural issues of all: abortion. Obviously the issue of abortion has been enormously divisive, but there is also no denying there is common ground. There are 1.3 million abortions each year in America. Everyone can agree that that is too many and on a shared goal of reducing the need for abortion in the first place. And I believe our first step is to unite and accept the responsibility of making abortion rare by focusing on prevention and by supporting pregnant women and new parents.

Even as a supporter of Roe V. Wade, I am compelled to acknowledge that the language both sides use on this subject can be unfortunately misleading and unconstructive. Unfortunately, this debate has been framed in an overly partisan setting with excessive language on both sides – none of which does justice to the depth of moral conviction held by all. There’s been demonization rather than debate. Distrust rather than discussion. Everyone is worse off for it. Instead of making enemies, we need to make progress.

What would progress look like? Many people are surprised to learn that the most dramatic decline in America’s abortion rate took place under the last Democratic administration when poverty declined, more people graduated from college, employment grew at record rates, and the economy grew at record levels. Unfortunately, the economic policies of these last six years increase the pressure on women with unplanned pregnancies to seek abortions.

In addition to focusing on policies that will prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place, I believe we should also embrace and expand a proven set of economic measures to again make significant progress on reducing the number of abortions in America. This would mean raising the minimum wage, expanding educational opportunity, giving tax credits for domestic adoptions, providing universal health insurance, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and expanding federally funded child care.

The fourth and final example of where people of faith should accept a common challenge is perhaps the most difficult and essential of all: rekindling a faith-based debate on the issues of war and peace. All our different faiths, whatever their philosophical differences, have a universal sense of values, ethics, and moral truths that honor and respect the dignity of all human beings. They all agree on a form of the Golden Rule and the Supreme importance of charity and compassion.

We are more than just Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims or atheists: we are human beings. We are more than the sum of our differences — we share a moral obligation to treat one another with dignity and respect—and the rest is commentary. Nowhere does this obligation arise more unavoidably than in when and how to resort to war.

Christians have long struggled to balance the legitimate need for self-defense with our highest ideals of justice and personal morality. Saint Augustine laid the foundation for a compelling philosophical tradition considering how and when Christians should fight.

Augustine felt that wars of choice are generally unjust wars, that war—the organized killing of human beings, of fathers, brothers, friends—should always be a last resort, that war must always have a just cause, that those waging war need the right authority to do so, that a military response must be proportionate to the provocation, that a war must have a reasonable chance of achieving its goal and that war must discriminate between civilians and combatants.

In developing the doctrine of Just War, Augustine and his many successors viewed self-restraint in warfare as a religious obligation, not as a pious hope contingent on convincing one’s adversaries to behave likewise. Throughout the centuries there have been Christian political leaders who argued otherwise; who contended that observing Just War principles was weak, naïve, or even cowardly.

It’s in Americas’ interests to maintain our unquestionable moral authority — and we risk losing it when leaders make excuses for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo or when an Administration lobbies for torture.

For me, the just war criteria with respect to Iraq are very clear: sometimes a President has to use force to fight an enemy bent on using weapons of mass destruction to slaughter innocents. But no President should ever go to war because they want to—you go to war only because you have to. The words “last resort” have to mean something .

In Iraq, those words were rendered hollow. It was wrong to prosecute the war without careful diplomacy that assembled a real coalition. Wrong to prosecute war without a plan to win the peace and avoid the chaos of looting in Baghdad and streets full of raw sewage. Wrong to prosecute a war without considering the violence it would unleash and what it would do to the lives of innocent people who would be in danger.

People of faith obviously don’t have to agree with me about how we keep America safe, how we prevail over terrorists, or how we end our disastrous adventure in Iraq. But I do hope people of faith step up to the challenge of rejecting the idea that obedience to God somehow stops when the fighting starts. We need a revival of the debate over what constitutes Just Wars and how they must be conducted, and all people of faith, whatever their political allegiances, should participate in the debate.

I lay out these four great challenges—fighting poverty and disease, taking care of the earth, reducing abortions, and fighting only just wars—as godly tasks on which we can transcend the culture wars and reach common ground. And for all the anger and fear so often expressed about the intersection of politics and religion, I believe that a vision of public service based upon serving rather than being served is ultimately a vision of hope and not despair. The Scripture says, again and again, “be not afraid.” God is not through with humanity. Shame on us if we use our faith to divide and alienate people from one another or if we draft God into partisan service. Shame on us if we sow fear for our own advantage. As God gives us the ability to see, let us take up the tasks associated with loving our neighbors as ourselves. We can take up God’s work as our own. The call of Jesus, and of every great religious leader, to everyone is one of service to all and not the pursuit of power. Each of us needs to do our best to answer that call, and help each other hear it in a common spirit of obedience, humility and love.

[rodeodance]

144. Well said. and here is the link:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4212


John Kerry at Pepperdine: “Service and Faith”

[Zhade]

182. "defend the central institution of marriage" - what?

Since when was marriage in need of defense? Why repeat this rightwing LIE?

You're a Kerry groupie, blm - explain to me why he is using rightwing language like this, and the bullshit rhetoric about "innocent unborn chidren".

[Megahurtz]

185. Good Post.

Why do these idiots want to force females to have more babies?

We don't need any more frickin' babies!:applause:

There are already enough unwanted children in the World,
and there are already way too many fucking people in the World!

[Warpy]

7. Tax credits for ADOPTIVE PARENTS???

OK, now I know he's completely out of touch. Adoptive parents, of which there are too many for the healthy infants available, already get tax credits in the form of the tax deductions, parental leave, and a host of other bennies.

Meanwhile, the birth mother has risked her life and in many cases wrecked it and has her medical costs paid, period.

Stripping mothers of the children they bear to give to someone else is simply not part of the answer here.

Support for mothers is the answer. Birth control as a normal part of a single payer health care system is the answer. Plan B is the answer. Safe and legal abortion when birth control has failed is the answer.

Tax credits are what rich males think of first, last and always. Too bad they consider women unworthy to listen to.

[blm]

12. Your fourth sentence is included in his speech - it's posted above.

.

[StoryTeller]

13. I am an adoptive mother

I have friends (several) who are birth mothers.

My daughter is adopted. Two of my siblings are adopted. My father in law is adopted.

I find your assessment of the adoption situation very inadequate and out of touch with reality.

And furthermore, there already is a real adoption tax credit. It has helped not only families wishing to adopt a newborn in our country, but it has helped orphans in other countries find permanent homes and it has helped thousands of children in our own foster care system get out of that (very broken) system and into permanent homes.

Adoption is not a panacea--it brings its own share of heartaches and challenges. But just because it is presented as an alternative to abortion is no reason to demonize it.

[LaurenG]

17. I agree with you

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

27. What about the birth mother?

As Warpy pointed out, she goes through nine months of grueling pregnancy and then labor. If she's a low wage worker, she either has to work (painfully) during the last trimester or has no income. She can only have her medical expenses paid. She may be lucky enough to find a maternity home if she's got no family to take care of her. But once she gives birth, the baby is taken from her and she is on her own.

I'm adopted too. I'm currently in the process of trying to locate my birth mother. I sincerely hope that her decision to relinquish me was not coerced but after hearing many horror stories from birth mothers I have known, I'm not optimistic that it wasn't.

BTW, where do get that adoption is being demonized in Warpy's post? She was criticizing tax policies favoring the affluent, not adoption.

[StoryTeller]

32. What "affluent"?

Regarding Birthmoms, I agree that they need much more assistance than what they normally receive. I post on this in a response further down.

Regarding tax policies that favor the affluent, this is a misunderstanding of how adoption tax credits work. First, they phase out with incomes over $100K/year. Second, the maximum is currently $10k, unless you are adopting a special needs child in which case it is a little higher. Third, the tax credit is applicable only for expenses directly relating to the adoption.

For example, if I do an adoption in a given year in which my federal tax burden is $3K, and my total adoption expenses were $20K, I get a tax credit that year of $3K. The other $7K rolls over to the next year and the next until I reach the $10K limit.

It's hardly making any of these families wealthy. And for those families who are truly already affluent, they aren't eligible for the tax credit. So I'm not sure why anyone would be upset by it. It's one of the few really good laws out there that had strong bi-partisan support.

These are the kinds of policies we should be trying to create for women who are facing an unwanted pregnacy but who do not want an abortion. And for women who feel their best choice is to end their pregnancy. I'm not saying tax credits themselves are the answer, but finding creative ways to address the specific needs of women in these types of situations would be a worthy way of using our resources.

That's all Mr. Kerry was saying in his speech. Let's put aside the rancor and differences of belief and let's focus our energy on things that will actually put help in the paths of these women and families and children who truly need it.

Peace, okay? I don't want to argue about this. It's real people at stake here, not just our own ideologies. I hope you are successful in finding your birth mother, and that you are able to establish a relationship with her. I wish we had hope of that for my daughter, too, but China's system makes that virtually impossible.

Blessings.

[karynnj]

45. But she intentionally ignored the end of very sentence

she read. Expanding the EITC and univeral health insurance both help the mother keeping the baby.

[Horse with no Name]

16. also when you consider

the prices that most of these people are ABLE to pay for these children (most which goes to the agencies), it really doesn't seem that they need tax breaks. A child is a luxury to them and should be treated as such. The government doesn't need to subsidize it. Of course, that is if you are speaking of healthy infants. I would appropriately acquiesce tax breaks to adoptions of children that have been abandoned,abused or ones that have serious medical problems. Special needs children of any type.
I find myself more and more agreeing with most of what you say.
Let's utilize that "tax break" money and provide more daycare options, health care, and education to the birth mothers and quit making it easy on people who already do okay financially.

[StoryTeller]

22. It's a complicated issue...

I disagree with you quite strongly that parents who do adoptions of healthy newborns are doing so as a "luxury." The vast majority of parents in that situation have come to adoption after a heartrending journey through infertility. They are not always wealthy people. Many are quite average, ordinary people who deeply desire children and have traveled through the pain of seeing that desire denied them.

And it is also untrue that agencies get "all that money." I don't know of any adoption agency that is wealthy or whose social workers are getting rich off these adoptive parents. That's utter nonsense. The agency and home study fees are normally the smallest part of adoption expenses.

I believe that the most expensive type of adoption in the U.S. is a private adoption, which takes place through a lawyer instead of an agency. However, in this situation, not only does the money go toward the legal fees, the birthmother's prenatal and labor/delivery expenses are also usually covered. This is why a private adoption can be well over $30K, the last I heard.

The current tax credit is a maximum of $10k. I think it's a little more if you adopt a special needs baby from within the U.S. This credit fades out with income over $100K a year, so it's hardly benefitting wealthy families.

Again, please don't waste your venom on adoptive families. A lot of us are on "your side" and appreciate the help we've been given to help provide a home for a child that we love very deeply.

[Horse with no Name]

26. With all due respect

A child is a luxury item whether you adopt them or birth them.
They are not a necessity, they are something you want.
There are many wealthy adoptive agencies out there, perhaps your dealings were not with those of that ilk. Congratulations.
I never mentioned social workers? Not sure how they came into play.
If a person is unable to have children and still desires them, I do not believe they deserve any special tax breaks or considerations that birth parents do not get unless they are giving a home to a special needs child.
If there is extra money to be thrown around, I believe it should go to try to help the birth mother to keep her child if that is what she desires.
Whether it is to attend school, daycare, etc.
A mother shouldn't feel so hopeless as to have to give a child up because she can't afford it so that someone else can get a tax break to raise it.
I have no venom towards adoptive parents. I think it is great that you are willing to take in a child and love it. I just don't feel that my tax dollars should be spent to help you get a child that you desperately want.

[StoryTeller]

29. I agree with some of what you said

For clarification, we adopted from China. We are not infertile, and in fact chose to adopt before getting pregnant because we wanted our adopted daughter to know that she was neither "plan B" nor a "last resort." However, my best friend and her husband struggled deeply with infertility. I think it is hard for those who have not experienced it to understand the deep pain involved. It's not a matter of whether or not children are a "luxury item"--which is a term I find rather offensive, btw.

Also, it's a simplification to imply that birth mothers always want to keep their children. Some really, really do. Some wish they could, but feel it wouldn't be in the child's best interest. Some truly do not wish it. Not all women facing an unwanted pregnancy WANT an abortion. This is why it is called a "choice." I'm sure you know that, but sometimes in our rush to defend abortion, we miss that aspect of the issue. The birthmothers I know and am friends with had no desire to end their pregnancies. The decision they made was a very personal one, and I am glad that they had the ability to make it themselves.

However, I DO agree with you that there needs to be a LOT more assistance given to women who do wish to keep their babies. And if you read Kerry's speech, he talks some about that, too. It doesn't need to be an either/or situation. I WANT birthmoms to have REAL choices--every step of the way. They should have choices from receiving good education about their sexual decisions clear through to choices about their pregnancies and who will raise their children, should they choose to have them.

But should they choose adoption, I also think it's good to have choices available to potential adoptive families that enable them to open their lives and homes to these kids.

[karynnj]

43. If you read to the end of the very same sentence

"providing universal health insurance, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and expanding federally funded child care."

Federally funded child care and expanding the EITC do help the birth mother keeping the child. Note: that's Tax CREDIT - he may be a rich white male but he is neither stupid or uncaring.

[bling bling]

93. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

Do you know how much it costs to adopt a child? Especially if you adopt from outside the country. The fees can cost $10,000.00 - $20,000.00. I have absolutely no problem at all with providing some relief to families who want to adopt in the form of tax breaks. It would be good if the Insurance Companies would cover some of the costs, too. They're willing to pay thousands and thousands of dollars in hospital charges if you birth your own child, but nothing if you adopt. Doesn't seem fair.

[CTyankee]

104. Yep, women as "brood mares"

So a poor woman can't take care of a child? So she should have the baby so a rich woman can adopt it?

I've heard this argument and it makes me sick. Okay, lady, so you feel you can't afford having this baby. Here, we'll give you money so you can give the baby away to a rich woman.

Uh, what about the poor woman's feelings about her own body, her own personal privacy and her own moral choice?

Nah, the hell with that! Why should HER feelings matter?

[Megahurtz]

186. Yeah, it's totally a bunch of shit, isn't it? n/t

[greccogirl]

129. What do you have against adoption?

I totally disagree. Adoption should be encouraged, especially of ALL children and not just white bread babies. My husband and I tried to adopt several times when our boys were small - and specifically wanted a mixed race child or a child of any ethnic origin. We were flat told that 1) we already had two children and therefore wouldn't get high on the list and 2) we wouldn't be allowed to adopt an ethic child. Keep in mind this was back in the 70's, the stone age, when there were several national news stories about mixed race children being taken from their white adoptive parents or foster parents because they needed to be raised in "black" homes. Thank god we've gotten away from that.

Having said that, I have two close friends both of whom have adopted all of their children and they are extremely happy.

[Beausoir]

153. You have no idea what you are talking about.

My adoption agency runs a food pantry right out of their office. My adoption fees go right back into the community in the form of housing, dental care, medical care, job search assistance, ESL classes, counseling and food through this agency. They own several apartments where women who are in crisis can live, have food and electricity and some sense of safety until they figure out what they want to do. MANY times, the mother chooses to parent her child, once she gets some medical/prenatal care and some food and is given some support. The goal of my agency is to give the pregnant woman as much support as possible so she can make the best decision for herself and her baby.

Sometimes, these women are prostitutes. Sometimes they are drug addicts. Mostly, it is not a pretty picture and my agency provides vital, life saving support for them.

You have a dark ages view of adoption. This idea that someone is ripping the infant out of a woman's arms and handing the child over to some rich people is absolutely laughable. Perhaps you should volunteer at an agency in your town so you can actually get some information. My agency always needs people to round up donations, drive women to their dental appointments and medical appointments, take them shopping for clothes or necessities. I'm certain you would find someplace to lend a hand.

[Realityhack]

227. Quick Question

Can you comment on the previous posters statement that:
"Adoptive parents, of which there are too many for the healthy infants available..."

I have never heard that before.

[blm]

14. Hey ck, can you add speech to your post so people can read actual entirety

of his remarks, and not just the part Globe editted?


“Service and Faith”
Senator John Kerry
Pepperdine University
Malibu, California

September 18, 2006
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

Thank you. It’s wonderful to be here. For some time, I have looked forward to this opportunity to come here to talk about my faith, and the role of faith in public life. And I’m very grateful to Pepperdine—an institution explicitly founded to shine the light of God’s truth through the service of its graduates—for giving me this opportunity.

There will always be those bent on corrupting our political discourse, particularly where religion is involved. But I learned how important it is to make certain people have a deeper understanding of the values that shape me and the faith that sustains me. Despite this New Englanders’ past reticence of talking publicly about my faith, I learned that if I didn’t fill in the picture myself, others would draw the caricature for me. I will never let that happen again—and neither should you, because no matter your party, your ideology, or your faith, we are all done a disservice when the debate is reduced to ugly and untrue caricatures.

I was born, baptized, and raised a Catholic. Needless to say, my first and formative sense of religion came from my parents, Richard and Rosemary. My mother was a Protestant but went out of her way to see that I learned my catechism, attended Church, and prepared for First Communion. Both my parents taught me early on that we are all put on this earth for something greater than ourselves. Later, I was an altar boy at my Church. My parents taught me my faith and they taught me to live by it.

I went to a high school called St. Paul’s, an Episcopal school where we attended chapel every morning and twice on Sundays in addition to the Catholic service in town which a group of us would go to. I studied religious studies and as you would imagine at a school called St. Paul’s, became more than familiar with St. Paul’s letters to just about everybody.

The Catholic church that I grew up with didn’t focus on scripture the way we do today. The Mass was in Latin. But with the Second Vatican Council, that changed. Now, revised prayers for the Sacraments and other parts of the liturgy use Biblical language almost entirely. It elevates both our practice and our understanding of our faith. And despite our continued historical and theological differences, it has helped to emphasize what unites Christian churches rather than what divides them. The long and short of it is that today we are far more “Bible”-focused and knowledgeable based on several clear principles, chief among them the centrality of Jesus.

I confronted my own mortality head-on during the Vietnam War, where faith was as much a part of my daily life as the battle itself. But I have to say that in retrospect my relationship with God was a dependent one—a “God—get me through this and I’ll be good” – relationship. As I became disillusioned with the war, my faith was also put to the test. For me, war was a difficult place for faith to grow. Some of my closest friends were killed. I saw things that disturb me to this day. Theologians often talk about “the problem of evil,” the difficulty of explaining why terrible and senseless events are part of God’s plan. In combat, you confront the problem of evil in an up-front and personal way that is hard for others to fully understand.

So, yes, I prayed hard while I was in Vietnam and I made it back, but the experience, the “problem of evil,” took some time to reconcile. When I returned stateside, I went through a period of alienation. I was inspired by the Christian moral witness of people like Martin Luther King, Jr. in the civil rights movement, Reverend William Sloane Coffin in the peace movement and other voices of Christian conscience. But still I was searching — somewhat spiritually adrift, unsure of my relationship with God and the Church.

Within the Catholic Church, we talk about being born Catholic—but as in any faith community, there’s a moment when you first consciously choose whether to fully participate in your heritage, or look elsewhere. For me that came a number of years later after the war.

For twelve years I wandered in the wilderness, went through a divorce and struggled with questions about my direction. Then suddenly and movingly, I had a revelation about the connection between the work I was doing as a public servant and my formative teachings. Indeed, the scriptures provided a firmer guide about values applied to life – many of the things you are wrestling with now today.

I remember how difficult it was to be your age – so many decisions to work out, such a tangle of choices and possibilities, whose consequences seem unknowable – and yet life-shaping. For you here at Pepperdine, it’s a time when you’re exploring your commitment to God, embarking on a journey to figure out how to lead a good life, how to translate your values—who you love, what you are passionate about, how you worship—how you translate that into the daily fabric of your existence.

One of my favorite passages from scripture, a familiar story from the Gospel According to Mark 10:35-45, sheds a lot of light for me on how to translate my faith into action.

The Apostles James and John ask their teacher Jesus if they can sit, one at his right hand and one at his left hand, and bask in his glory. They want to be seen as first among the disciples. And Jesus tells them, while they can drink from his cup and share in the baptism, the special position they want isn’t his to grant—it’s only for those who are up to the task.

When the other ten disciples heard about James and John’s request, they were angry. And so Jesus gathered them all together and said to them, “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to be first among you must be servant of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

This is the third time Jesus’ disciples have misunderstood the nature of their discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. And I suppose you could say that James and John are trying to become the first political appointees in the New Testament—trying to get special favors for their proximity to power. But Jesus responds with an essential lesson. He contrasts greatness in the Kingdom of God with Roman political power. While greatness in the Roman Empire is based on brute force—lording it over those less fortunate for the worst possible reason—simply because you can, greatness in the Kingdom of God is based on humble service, on being servant to all.”

Those lines in Mark had a profound impact on me: “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve.” Well, I consider public leadership to be a form of Christian service and an expression of my faith. I believe the most important teaching of the Gospels is that it is not enough just to say one believes in Jesus. Believing in Jesus requires action—it requires a bona fide effort—commitment to live in the example of Jesus and nowhere in my judgment is the expectation of service more clearly stated than in Matthew 25:34:

“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,

I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.”

So it is important for me to share with you how we might move from the example of Jesus as a servant into addressing the pressing needs of our time. The Catholic Bishops in their 2004 election guide provided great spiritual wisdom and guidance as they set forth a series of questions about expectations in public life.

I think they are questions any Christian needs to wrestle with:

1. After September 11, how can we build not only a safer world, but a better world—more just, more secure, more peaceful, more respectful of human life and dignity?

2. How will we protect the weakest in our midst—innocent unborn children? How will our nation resist what Pope John Paul II calls a “culture of death”? How can we keep our nation from turning to violence to solve some of its most difficult problems—abortion to deal with difficult pregnancies; the death penalty to combat crime; euthanasia and assisted suicide to deal with the burdens of age, illness, and disability; and war to address international disputes?

3. How will we address the tragic fact that more than 30,000 children die every day as a result of hunger, international debt, and lack of development around the world, as well as the fact that the younger you are, the more likely you are to be poor here in the richest nation on earth?

4. How can our nation help parents raise their children with respect for life, sound moral values, a sense of hope, and an ethic of stewardship and responsibility? How can our society defend the central institution of marriage and better support families in their moral roles and responsibilities, offering them real choices and financial resources to obtain quality education and decent housing?

5. How will we address the growing number of families and individuals without affordable and accessible health care? How can health care better protect human life and respect human dignity?

6. How will our society combat continuing prejudice, overcome hostility toward immigrants and refugees, and heal the wounds of racism, religious bigotry, and other forms of discrimination?

7. How will our nation pursue the values of justice and peace in a world where injustice is common, desperate poverty widespread, and peace is too often overwhelmed by violence?

8. What are the responsibilities and limitations of families, community organizations, markets, and government? How can these elements of society work together to overcome poverty, pursue the common good, care for creations, and overcome injustice?

9. When should our nation use, or avoid the use of, military force—for what purpose, under what authority, and at what human cost?

10. How can we join with other nations to lead the world to greater respect for human life and dignity, religious freedom and democracy, economic justice and care for God’s creation?

I believe these questions can be gathered around four issues where people of faith from every background can work together with other people of good will towards public policies that contribute to the common good.

The first and perhaps most obvious common challenge is to take practical steps to address global issues of poverty, disease, and despair.

The cares of the poor and the troubled should be the focus of all our work. Today extreme poverty shackles one sixth of the globe’s population, one-fifth lack access to safe drinking water. Here in America twenty one percent of our children live in poverty. Eleven million under 21 don’t have health insurance. Thirty thousand children worldwide perish each day because of hunger and disease attributable to poverty.

A few weeks ago, we passed the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. And, amidst the howling wind and rushing flood waters, you could practically feel Americans’ emotional recognition—our shock—at just how far we still have to climb to fulfill our Christian responsibility to care for the worst off among us. Jesus told us “Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me,” but when the great flood of our time came, we weren’t ready. Interestingly, the most rapid and effective response came from the faith community, but as a country, we left people to die on rooftops and in hospital beds. The failure should sting and it should shame all of us, but it should also bring a renewed sense of mission: We’ve lapsed in our covenant between the people and the government, between rich and poor people and between rich and poor countries, that nobody should be left behind. No American, no country, no human being.

You – each of you — can do something about this and get involved in a multitude of ways including joining something like the ONE Campaign. And for those who ask the inevitable question, ‘why does that matter to me here at home as a citizen of our country?’ With the right political leadership, we can end extreme poverty in your lifetime if we commit the resources to do it.

Evangelical Christians have honored the best traditions of Christianity and of patriotism in tirelessly fighting to end the genocide in Darfur. I’ve often referred to the words of the Epistle of St. James 2:17: “faith without works is dead”—and Christian work in Darfur—day in and day out to make sure that “never again” isn’t just a convenient lie we tell ourselves to sleep better at night- is the embodiment of that Christian—of that American—ideal.

Christians like Rick Warren are also working to fight AIDS. How can we sit idly by when this plague of our time sweeps across the world? How can we not do everything in our power to make sure that our life-saving treatments are spread far and wide to those in need? There are forty million cases today, and last year 3 million people died from AIDS. Jesus did not “heal the sick” only if they had the money to pay for it, only if they could afford antiretroviral drugs—no, he sought out people in need. And we need to do the same today.

A second common challenge arises from the deep concern virtually all people of faith are enjoined to maintain toward sustaining and protecting God’s first creation. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians 10:20 says, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything on it.” The Prophet Isaiah (66:2) says, “has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?”

These days we face problems on a biblical scale—floods, storms, plagues, the destruction of entire cities. And it is my belief that confronting manmade climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges we face.

Evangelicals talk about “creation-care” — that any damage that we do to God’s world is an offense against God. God called us to be stewards of the earth and its creatures, and since most of the climate change problem is human induced, its’ pretty clear that we haven’t done that good of a job. The warnings are loud and clear for all to see—rising waters, melting caps, storms of ever-greater proportions, and ironclad scientific evidence. Surely this is an issue where people of faith can come together and demand action. I can assure you, when I cast a vote in the Senate on environmental issues, I try to act as a steward of the earth.

A third area where we can find common ground is on one of the most emotional cultural issues of all: abortion. Obviously the issue of abortion has been enormously divisive, but there is also no denying there is common ground. There are 1.3 million abortions each year in America. Everyone can agree that that is too many and on a shared goal of reducing the need for abortion in the first place. And I believe our first step is to unite and accept the responsibility of making abortion rare by focusing on prevention and by supporting pregnant women and new parents.

Even as a supporter of Roe V. Wade, I am compelled to acknowledge that the language both sides use on this subject can be unfortunately misleading and unconstructive. Unfortunately, this debate has been framed in an overly partisan setting with excessive language on both sides – none of which does justice to the depth of moral conviction held by all. There’s been demonization rather than debate. Distrust rather than discussion. Everyone is worse off for it. Instead of making enemies, we need to make progress.

What would progress look like? Many people are surprised to learn that the most dramatic decline in America’s abortion rate took place under the last Democratic administration when poverty declined, more people graduated from college, employment grew at record rates, and the economy grew at record levels. Unfortunately, the economic policies of these last six years increase the pressure on women with unplanned pregnancies to seek abortions.

In addition to focusing on policies that will prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place, I believe we should also embrace and expand a proven set of economic measures to again make significant progress on reducing the number of abortions in America. This would mean raising the minimum wage, expanding educational opportunity, giving tax credits for domestic adoptions, providing universal health insurance, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and expanding federally funded child care.

The fourth and final example of where people of faith should accept a common challenge is perhaps the most difficult and essential of all: rekindling a faith-based debate on the issues of war and peace. All our different faiths, whatever their philosophical differences, have a universal sense of values, ethics, and moral truths that honor and respect the dignity of all human beings. They all agree on a form of the Golden Rule and the Supreme importance of charity and compassion.

We are more than just Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims or atheists: we are human beings. We are more than the sum of our differences — we share a moral obligation to treat one another with dignity and respect—and the rest is commentary. Nowhere does this obligation arise more unavoidably than in when and how to resort to war.

Christians have long struggled to balance the legitimate need for self-defense with our highest ideals of justice and personal morality. Saint Augustine laid the foundation for a compelling philosophical tradition considering how and when Christians should fight.

Augustine felt that wars of choice are generally unjust wars, that war—the organized killing of human beings, of fathers, brothers, friends—should always be a last resort, that war must always have a just cause, that those waging war need the right authority to do so, that a military response must be proportionate to the provocation, that a war must have a reasonable chance of achieving its goal and that war must discriminate between civilians and combatants.

In developing the doctrine of Just War, Augustine and his many successors viewed self-restraint in warfare as a religious obligation, not as a pious hope contingent on convincing one’s adversaries to behave likewise. Throughout the centuries there have been Christian political leaders who argued otherwise; who contended that observing Just War principles was weak, naïve, or even cowardly.

It’s in Americas’ interests to maintain our unquestionable moral authority — and we risk losing it when leaders make excuses for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo or when an Administration lobbies for torture.

For me, the just war criteria with respect to Iraq are very clear: sometimes a President has to use force to fight an enemy bent on using weapons of mass destruction to slaughter innocents. But no President should ever go to war because they want to—you go to war only because you have to. The words “last resort” have to mean something .

In Iraq, those words were rendered hollow. It was wrong to prosecute the war without careful diplomacy that assembled a real coalition. Wrong to prosecute war without a plan to win the peace and avoid the chaos of looting in Baghdad and streets full of raw sewage. Wrong to prosecute a war without considering the violence it would unleash and what it would do to the lives of innocent people who would be in danger.

People of faith obviously don’t have to agree with me about how we keep America safe, how we prevail over terrorists, or how we end our disastrous adventure in Iraq. But I do hope people of faith step up to the challenge of rejecting the idea that obedience to God somehow stops when the fighting starts. We need a revival of the debate over what constitutes Just Wars and how they must be conducted, and all people of faith, whatever their political allegiances, should participate in the debate.

I lay out these four great challenges—fighting poverty and disease, taking care of the earth, reducing abortions, and fighting only just wars—as godly tasks on which we can transcend the culture wars and reach common ground. And for all the anger and fear so often expressed about the intersection of politics and religion, I believe that a vision of public service based upon serving rather than being served is ultimately a vision of hope and not despair. The Scripture says, again and again, “be not afraid.” God is not through with humanity. Shame on us if we use our faith to divide and alienate people from one another or if we draft God into partisan service. Shame on us if we sow fear for our own advantage. As God gives us the ability to see, let us take up the tasks associated with loving our neighbors as ourselves. We can take up God’s work as our own. The call of Jesus, and of every great religious leader, to everyone is one of service to all and not the pursuit of power. Each of us needs to do our best to answer that call, and help each other hear it in a common spirit of obedience, humility and love.

[David Zephyr]

108. Thanks for providing his text. A good speech by Senator Kerry.

Too bad that some here did not read his speech and only want to jump all over the man at every possible opportunity.

John Kerry's credentials on protecting women's reproductive rights and choice are just about as good as it gets. Every Catholic in America already knows that about him and this doesn't change that one bit. However, it does go a long way in showcasing that the majority of American Catholics also stand for a lot of other things and have a long tradition of working for social/economic justice.

I think this was a good speech and an honest one, too.

Thanks, blm for posting his text here so that I could read it. :)

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

15. Pro-Choice, Anti-Abortion

Why does that seem to be an oxymoron.?

Can't someone say 'yes, a woman should have the right to decide, but abortion is the least favorable of her options (at least IMHO'?

Education and responsibility #1. So 'lowering the number of abortions' isn't the same as making it illegal or staunchly defending Pro-Life measures. It's merely saying let's put the responsibility in the foresight.. not the hindsight.

There will always be abortions, legal or illegal, but at least legally, they can be discussed openly and candidly.

[CTyankee]

106. But why should it be "IMHO" or anybody's humble opinion but the

woman's? Why is it anybody else's business? Women are moral agents and can make up their own minds about this. Why do we need anybody else's opinion on it?

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

173. As I always say...

Opinions not asked for are rarely appreciated.

So a woman doesn't need to rely on the opinions of anyone else, but if a woman does seek an opinion and options, shouldn't there be more than one voice?

[CTyankee]

175. Of course. I don't want to censor right to lifers

and a woman can make up her mind about what to do. There is certainly no dearth of information out there!

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

177. So if the Right of Lifers would spend their money and energy

.. on sexual-responsibility education, birth control, options, etc in a civil-manner instead of trying to simply outlaw abortion, shouldn't we walk away with a win-win situation where a woman's rights remain and the abortion rate should diminish?

Only if the US culture was that mature.

[CTyankee]

179. But the problem is they don't want people to have birth control

OR accurate medical information about sexuality. They think that birth control is a form of abortion and sex ed just promotes promiscuity, despite every study showing the contrary and empirical evidence where abortion decreases when people have access to contraception and are knowledgeable about their bodies.

This is why the whole discussion of "reaching out to find common ground" doesn't work. The other side just wants to reach out and shut us down: no abortion, no birth control, no facts about sex. Prevention based on criminal sanctions, censorship and blue laws. That'll work jes' fine.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

180. Okay, my optimism got the best of me.

Thanks for bringing me back to the reality of the situation. <argh! <smile>>

[CTyankee]

209. I'm sorry. I really am. This comes from a long

life in this struggle and I truly know how much people want to feel there is "middle ground."

I feel as you do that people should come together and say "we want a reduction in abortions" and lo! it would happen. But this will not be the case. Young women will be forced into abstinence tracts, efforts will be made to prevent accurate medical information to be disseminated, access to birth control will be hampered by pharmacists who deny women Plan B.

Let us stop this fantasy that prochoicers need to meet the antichoicers "half way." With them, there is no half way. It is their way or the highway.

[Megahurtz]

188. I call them "No Choicers"!

[BattyDem]

18. We need to get politics out of a woman's reproductive decisions

Tax credits for adoptive parents, more government aid for working mothers, and health insurance for everyone are wonderful and we should implement those things - but they all benefit the woman who chooses to have a child.

Women who choose not to have a child should not have to travel hundreds of miles because there is only one abortion clinic in an entire state. They should not be subject to "interrogations" by health care workers who try to talk them out of it or make them feel ashamed. They should not have to wait 24-48 hours to have the procedure done because a politician wants to place yet another burden on her, especially if she travelled a long way.

We all know what each side stands for:

Abortion-rights supporters want women to be able to make their own choices and providing financial help and healthcare could make a difference. Access to birth control and sex education are also part of the plan to reduce the number of abortions. In any case, the final decision would belong to the woman.

Anti-abortion activists want to take away the choice and make the decision for each and every American woman. Most of them are also against birth control, sex education, financial help for the woman, etc., which is ironic because those are the things that would either encourage a woman to have the child or prevent her from getting pregnant and needing the abortion in the first place. :crazy:

[Kelvin Mace]

20. Once again, Kerry shows his Vichey Dem credentials

Like McCain, he will sell out any of us to be president.

[StoryTeller]

24. I don't know what you are talking about...

He hasn't said anything different than what he has always said. You should read the text of his speech and research his previous statements and actions about this issue. He hasn't "sold" anyone out. He is being who he has always been--a person of deep thought and great integrity.

I don't understand why you would make such a comment.

[Kelvin Mace]

30. He has started moving to the Right on religous

issues. Started talking up his Catholic faith and started parroting Pope Rat's talking points. He is sucking up to conservative Catholic bishops in the US who said it would be a mortal sin to vote for Kerry (because he supports abortion), but said nmo such thing about Bush (war monger).

Any time a politician starts talking about "reducing abortions" what they mean are more restrictions on abortion. Abortion is being made illegal one restriction at a time, and as such is practically unavailable in many states. (See my other post on the issue in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2519202&mesg_id=2519318).

The way to "redcue abortions" is to make contraceptives and sex education widely available.

Nowhere in his speech are these views mentioned.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4212

John Kerry is just another Vichey Dem, anxious to get along with the Radical Right.

[StoryTeller]

35. This is inaccurate.

And it's also unfair. There are many of us who have strong faith, of many different religions or denominations, who are on the left side of the political spectrum. Mr. Kerry has every right in the world, both as a U.S. citizen and as an elected official to explain and talk about his faith. He says right at the beginning of the speech WHY he is explaining his faith--it is so that his political enemies can no longer paint it any way they want it. And neither can people in his own party. His faith belongs to him alone, and it is right and necessary for him to define it in his own terms.

Mr. Kerry explained what he means by "reducing" abortions. It was directly related to improving the economic situation of women. It had nothing to do with restricting abortions. I think that in fairness to him, you need to let him define the terms he uses, instead of imposing someone else's definition on them.

I would doubt he has any objection to either improved sex education or access to birth control. But from what I've heard from him, his area of greatest interest pertaining to this issue is in improving the economic condition of women and children. This isn't to say he does NOT support other measures of reducing the need for abortions, but this is where he has chosen to put his energy. It matches his other focus areas of universal health care and helping the poor.

Maybe this isn't the area you would choose, but that's why there are many of us. When we work together, in our own strength areas, we can do so much more good than if we waste our energy criticizing others for not doing things the way we would have done it.

[Kelvin Mace]

41. At no point have I contested Kerry's "right"

to discuss his faith. Please show me where I have done such a thing.

Mr. Kerry explained what he means by "reducing" abortions. It was directly related to improving the economic situation of women. It had nothing to do with restricting abortions. I think that in fairness to him, you need to let him define the terms he uses, instead of imposing someone else's definition on them.

Please show me where Kerry mentions the needs for sex education and contraception. It's not there and I have enough experience to know he didn't mention it because it would upset Evangelicals and conservative Catholics. This speech was for them.

I would doubt he has any objection to either improved sex education or access to birth control. But from what I've heard from him, his area of greatest interest pertaining to this issue is in improving the economic condition of women and children. This isn't to say he does NOT support other measures of reducing the need for abortions, but this is where he has chosen to put his energy. It matches his other focus areas of universal health care and helping the poor.

If he has NO objection to them, why not mention them? Sorry, not buying the BS from him.

I am sick and tired of politicians TELLING me they are Christians, I would prefer they ACT like Christians. When politicians talk about their "faith", they are peddling Jesus for votes. If true Christians are not offended by this, they aren't paying attention.

[Zhade]

189. But the problem is, he didn't say "reduce THE NEED FOR abortions".

He said "reduce abortions" - which as Kelvin rightly points out, is rightwing-speak for eliminating the right to it.

I do NOT think Kerry means outlawing abortion. But like his echoing the rightwing lie of "defending marriage", it was poorly said at best.

[blm]

49. Baloney, KM - this speech is a liberal manifesto of Jesus teachings and

could have been given by Dennis Kucinich.

He is presenting the liberal INTERPRETATION of the Bible to an audience of conservative college kids.


Your post is unfair and inaccurate, and I usually side with you on most issues.

I'm an atheist, and I can hear what he's doing here with this speech - he's bringing the faith voters to the LEFT, and no where does he move towards them - no where.

[Kelvin Mace]

61. Again, I am reading what he is saying

and I have heard EXACTLY the same thing before from Dems turning to the Right.

For crying out loud he used the Pope's/Right-wing's "culture of death" phrase in his speech. I could have accepted what he said if he had said "The surest way to reduce abortion in this country is to insure that all men and women have access to contraceptives and a proper sex education, and I will do all in my power to make theat a reality." But he didn't, he used all the code words that I have heard before.

This is ALSO the man who said that if he knew then what he knew now, he would STILL vote to give Bush the power to invade Iraq.

Kerry had his chance, and he blew it. I would prefer Gore or Feingold to be the Dem nominee. Feingold has always spoken his mind, and Gore learned his lesson about playing the insider game.

[blm]

70. He was REPEATING what the Bishop's list said - Why pretend he was using it

He was ANSWERING it with the LIBERAL ANSWERS and using scripture to present the LIBERAL CASE.

Yeah - when you come up with a list of Feingold's really tough battles he's taken on over his last 13 yrs in the senate, make sure you post them.

A lit of his actions would be appreciated.

[Kelvin Mace]

79. OK, let's look at what he said

He agrees that the questions raised are questions that must be debated.

I think they are questions any Christian needs to wrestle with:

2. How will we protect the weakest in our midst—innocent unborn children? How will our nation resist what Pope John Paul II calls a “culture of death”? How can we keep our nation from turning to violence to solve some of its most difficult problems—abortion to deal with difficult pregnancies; the death penalty to combat crime; euthanasia and assisted suicide to deal with the burdens of age, illness, and disability; and war to address international disputes?

Let's dissect this:

How will we protect the weakest in our midst—innocent unborn children?

This question supposes that there are "innocent unborn children" which implies guilty women who carry them, just itching to murder them as quickly as possible.

How will our nation resist what Pope John Paul II calls a "culture of death?"

Do a search on "culture of death" and see how many wing nut sites pop up. Since Kerry did not repudiate this phrase as INACCURATE, we must assume he agrees with the sentiment.

How can we keep our nation from turning to violence to solve some of its most difficult problems—abortion to deal with difficult pregnancies; the death penalty to combat crime; euthanasia and assisted suicide to deal with the burdens of age, illness, and disability; and war to address international disputes?

This statement assumes that abortion and assisted suicide are on par with war and the death penalty. These actions are VIOLENCE against others, and who will be advocating to tolerate violence against other people?

Now let's skip down to where he addresses this paragraph:

There are 1.3 million abortions each year in America. Everyone can agree that that is too many and on a shared goal of reducing the need for abortion in the first place.

Really? Who said there are "too many"? How many is acceptable? My view is ANY medical procedure which saves a woman's life or improves her quality of life is acceptable. Any law which deprives a woman of sovereignty over her own body is WRONG. Once you start with the "there are too many abortions" argument, a woman's right to her own body is in grave peril.

And I believe our first step is to unite and accept the responsibility of making abortion rare by focusing on prevention and by supporting pregnant women and new parents.

Again, the language is "reducing" abortion, not assuring women that it will be legal, available and without restrictions. At no point does he say that current restrictions placed on abortion are wrong and counter-productive, thus one must assume he is in favor of leaving them in place.

Even as a supporter of Roe V. Wade, I am compelled to acknowledge that the language both sides use on this subject can be unfortunately misleading and un constructive. Unfortunately, this debate has been framed in an overly partisan setting with excessive language on both sides – none of which does justice to the depth of moral conviction held by all. There’s been demonization rather than debate. Distrust rather than discussion. Everyone is worse off for it. Instead of making enemies, we need to make progress.

All through this he is VERY careful to talk about reducing abortion, while not demanding that the folks on the Right realize that abortion must remain legal and should be free of restrictions designed to deprive women of the right to control their own body. It's all a one way street. Concessions to the Right. "Hey ladies, you have to admit, the Right has a point and you must accept this".

What would progress look like? Many people are surprised to learn that the most dramatic decline in America’s abortion rate took place under the last Democratic administration when poverty declined, more people graduated from college, employment grew at record rates, and the economy grew at record levels. Unfortunately, the economic policies of these last six years increase the pressure on women with unplanned pregnancies to seek abortions.

In addition to focusing on policies that will prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place, I believe we should also embrace and expand a proven set of economic measures to again make significant progress on reducing the number of abortions in America. This would mean raising the minimum wage, expanding educational opportunity, giving tax credits for domestic adoptions, providing universal health insurance, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and expanding federally funded child care.

Excellent points certainly, but again, completely devoid of any position explaining to the Right that their attempt to outlaw and restrict abortion are wrong and COMPLETELY counter-productive. No mention of contraceptives and sex education at all, the two MOST CRITICAL strategies if you are SERIOUS about "reducing abortion".

Why not mention this? Because the religiously insane he is pandering to have the same views of contraceptives and sex ed as they do of abortion. If he mentions it, they will reject him out of hand.

Again, I see sucking up to the Religious Right as completely futile and harmful to liberalism.

[blm]

83. He made the case that if people of faith want to reduce abortions they

should support LIBERAL POLICIES on healthcare because that is where they also get health education which REDUCES abortion.

They should support LIBERAL ECONOMIC POLICIES so no one should HAVE to have an abortion because they can't afford a child.

Sex education is part of healthcare - I learned it in my health classes.

And repeating the words of the bishops is not agreeing with them - he was setting up what they said so he could present his case using LIBERAL INTERPRETATIONS of scripture.

What he did was pretty cool, and I say that as someone who gets annoyed at any religious speech from politicians because its often used to DIVIDE people. There is NOTHING in this speech that could cause division, only education and healing.

When the Democrats are not about education, compassion and healing, then I want out.

[Kelvin Mace]

87. Perhaps I am just too cynical

As I said earlier, I would be very happy to be wrong, but I have just seen this too many times to support it.

Again, lots of talk pleasing to the Right, no mention that the Right MUST accept abortion as legal and remove frivilous restrictions.

I disagree with the comment that there is "NOTHING in this speech that could cause division, only education and healing."

Quite a number of folk on this thread are annoyed, me included. Time will tell which of us is right.

[blm]

89. 20 years of fully supporting abortion rights should mean something.

I have had this battle many times with Kucinich haters who claim he isn't sincere about his prochoice abortion because of his past voting record. I know very much how he was raised, and I know his constituency, Dennis is 100% sincere in his evolution towards abortion rights.

When you know a person's record or you know a person's heart, it's easier to know if they mean what they say.

This wasn't an easy speech for Kerry. He really doesn't like talking about his faith - but he was invited to speak at a conservative college, and I think he made the right choice in choosing to use his time explaining how religious faith INFORMS his liberal views.

[Kelvin Mace]

95. As I have said,

John Kerry may be completely sincere in his beliefs, however that doesn't change the fact that he seems to be pandering to the Religious Right.

Again, time will tell.

[blm]

97. You pander to the right when you alter your policies to FIT theirs.

Informing a conservative audience at a religious school how scripture backs up YOUR LIBERAL VIEWS doesn't consitute pandering to the right.

Kerry took the OPPOSITE TACT - inform instead of pander.

Nighty night, Dave. little blm needs to sleep. ;)

[Kelvin Mace]

121. You pander to the right

when you give a speech that is carefully couched in is designed to get you votes from the right win. P

[blm]

147. There is nothing carefully couched - in fact, he's saying the language the

sides use is wrong - the language of PANDERERS is what he wants to change - and honesty about the goals is how to do it. If a prolifer is SINCERE about doing God's work, well, there's plenty of areas of God's work that would help them reduce the number of abortions than the way they have been going about it -LIBERAL POLIICIES that they have ignored in favor of their own narrow interpretations.

I believe Kerry OPENED more than a few conservative eyes with this speech.

[Kelvin Mace]

149. And lost an equal number of liberals in the process.

You cannot convert these people. If they haven't figured out that the Right does not serve Christ whereas the Left does, there is NO hope for them.

[blm]

151. Why would a liberal be angry at his approach? Kucinich could have made

this speech. Kerry used GUIDING words for people who had been blind to the liberal side of scripture. You wanted him to PUSH. Kucinich would choose Kerry's way because he understands that not all prolifers are worthless rightwing nuts. Many are just following what they have been told is religious teaching.

YOU wouldn't go up in front of a thousand of these people at a religious school and pound at them using only a speech crafted for a NARAL rally would you?

He's using scripture at a RELIGIOUS SCHOOL and opening the door that they may see some light from OUR side for a change, and he did it without calling for any legal restrictions or compromise on abortion rights.

And also of note, KM, is that Kerry was ASKED by the school to speak about his faith as related to his public service. He took that challenge and gave an excellent window into how faith has INFORMED his LIBERAL WORLDVIEW and POLICIES.

Could you have done this better?

[Kelvin Mace]

155. Somehow, I don't think

Kucinich would have made a speech which gave the Right so many assuring words and ignored his base.

YOU wouldn't go up in front of a thousand of these people at a religious school and pound at them using only a speech crafted for a NARAL rally would you?

Well, I wouldn't be talking to any religious schools. Waste of time. As I said earlier, if they can't realize where their Christian duty lies, then there is no hope of educating them.

Also, given that NARAL CONTINUES to support Holy Joe, I wouldn't be doing too many speeches there until the leadership wised up.

You know what I WON'T see from Kerry? A speech where he goes before his base and states categorically that he will work to REMOVE the frivolous restrictions placed on abortion and will pass laws making contraceptives available to all who need them.

Ain't going to happen because he now wants votes from the Right.

Kerry used GUIDING words for people who had been blind to the liberal side of scripture. You wanted him to PUSH. Kucinich would choose Kerry's way because he understands that not all prolifers are worthless rightwing nuts. Many are just following what they have been told is religious teaching.

It is the responsibility of RELIGOIUS leaders to preach theology and Christian duty, not POLITICIANS. One reason we are in so much trouble now is that we have a "president" who thinks he's the goddamned Messiah. You don't counter the destruction of our seprataion of church and state by injecting more religion into the debate.

YOU wouldn't go up in front of a thousand of these people at a religious school and pound at them using only a speech crafted for a NARAL rally would you?

He's using scripture at a RELIGIOUS SCHOOL and opening the door that they may see some light from OUR side for a change, and he did it without calling for any legal restrictions or compromise on abortion rights.

And also of note, KM, is that Kerry was ASKED by the school to speak about his faith as related to his public service. He took that challenge and gave an excellent window into how faith has INFORMED his LIBERAL WORLDVIEW and POLICIES.

The answer to this invitation is that faith is a private matter and not one open for public discussion. The only people who publicly made a big deal about their faith and how they prayed were the Pharisees, and the world has enough Pharisees running around as it is.

Lecturing the faithful about their Christian duty is the responsibility of RELIGIOUS leaders, not POLITICIANS. The main reason we are in the mess we are in right now is that we have a "president" who thinks he's the goddamned Messiah!

You don't stop the destruction of the separation of Church and State by injecting more religion into the debate.

[blm]

157. Refusing discussion with those who disagree is the same one Bush takes.

BECAUSE Bush doesn't even want to KNOW what informs Muslims in their real world or how their religion effects and influences their culture and their governing bodies. Bush won't even send someone to sit down and talk with Iran or North Korea one on one.

As far as speaking to a religious college - You would have avoided having the discussion of service and faith at all. Kerry chose to use the opportunity to INFORM young minds that there is another side, a liberal side, that deserves a hearing.

I am curious if you think speaking to a religious COLLEGE audience to advocate for liberal policies is somehow worse than the many lawmakers who speak out at churches?


And BTW, Kucinich's speeches are often laced with spiritual overtones. They always have been.

And Kerry did not attack his base or move away from his base in this speech. YOU are claiming he did. I am trusting MY strong comprehension skills and stating for a FACT that he did not. And any forensic language educator worth their salt would agree.

[Kelvin Mace]

159. I object to lawmakers

speaking at any church when a casket is absent.

John Kerry and ANY politician is certainly free to hold PRIVATE discussions with religous leaders and disucss matters of faith, but public attendance at such events endorses religion.

One more time: It is NOT the place of a politician to explain people's Christian (or Muslim, or Buddhist, etc) duty.

[blm]

162. Can you name ONE lawmaker who hasn't shown up at a church or a religious

based meeting to discuss their candidacy or the policies they support to find common ground with the attendees?

Kerry went to a COLLEGE and spoke to conservative STUDENTS. I have never seen you post so vociferously against the politicians and candidates who speak at churches and church based gatherings. I would think that a Catholic College would be more acceptable venue to advocate liberal policies, especially in regard to abortion, than a church would be.

[Kelvin Mace]

166. Probably not

But "everybody does it" is hardly a reason to do it.

Again: Lecturing the faithful about their Christian duty is the responsibility of RELIGIOUS leaders, not POLITICIANS.

Maybe one day we will have a politician brave enough to actually live up to his "Christian duty" on this.

[blm]

167. Actually, I can't name a politician who has accepted an invitation to a

conservative college where instead of validating their legal position on the issues, he challenges them RESPECTFULLY to listen to his advocacy for the liberal position as a better solution.

Kerry is being attacked on this thread for entering the belly of the beast and for coming out alive and leaving a tamer beast.

[Kelvin Mace]

176. No, I am questioning

the wisdom of going to "the belly of the beast" and wasting time talking to people who would just as soon see us all dead. I am questioning making soothing sounds to people who WILL NOT change their mind. I have argued with many conservative Catholics in my day. I am Catholic, and the conservative faction is what drove me to atheism. I have come to the firm conclusion that religion is an irrational psychosis. It is benign in some people, and horribly malignant in others. Whatever we do, we should never encourage it, especially in politicians.

In the last election, the Pope and the Bishops told (in some cases by insinuation and in others cases overtly) that voting for Kerry was a mortal sin and would damn them to Hell. Millions of conservative Catholics embraced this view and voted for a war criminal who is PERSONALLY responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

John Kerry just went and addressed a number of these crazy people and told them what their invisible sky fairy meant to him. He made noises that he agreed with some of their egregious views. These are people whose spiritual leader, a man they hold to be INFALLIBLE on matters of church doctrine, was a Nazi. The institution they belong to protects child molesters for crying out loud. Cardinal Bernard Law should be in prison as an accessory before, and after, the fact, and running a criminal enterprise that traded in young children for sexual services. Instead, he has a cushy job in Rome under the protection of the Pope, safe from any criminal prosecution.

These are the people John Kerry wishes to please? These are the people he thinks he can reach? What next? The Klan? NAMBLA?

And not that other religions are much better. Hell the Southern Baptists didn't repudiate slavery until 1992. And don't get me started on Bob Jones, Pat Robertson, Mormons, $cientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Navigators for Christ, etc.

Well, now you have gone and given me yet another reason for vehemently disliking Kerry's speech.

[blm]

178. Pope John Paul corrected Cardinal Ratzinger and other bishops decried

the position of the RW bishops. You can't lump them all together.

And again, your reasoning is the exact same that Bush uses why the insurgency in Iraq shouldn't be at the table discussing a withdrawal plan - while Kerry's withdrawal plan calls for the heads of the insurgeny to BE AT THE TABLE along with the leaders of the region.

Sorry, Dave, but I really think being angered at THIS speech at a Catholic College is just wrongheaded. You are blocking out every liberal policy he discusses while using scripture - well - you may as well get angry at the whole Jesus is a Liberal movement and all the other Religious Liberal movements.

Kucinich COULD HAVE GIVEN THIS SPEECH and anyone who really knows DK would agree.

[Kelvin Mace]

181. John Paul is dead

and Pope Rat has been undoing what little good he managed to do in the last two decades. The Rat has now turned on Darwin and is advocating ID. The people at Pepperdine are not the "insurgency", WE are the insurgency, tryng to overthrow the lunatics in charge.

Again, I need Kerry to sound more like Keith Olbermann and less like Joe Lieberman.

I have also stated that I will hold my nose and vote for Kerry if he gets the nomination, just as I did last time.

If John Kerry is the BEST we can do, then this country is pretty much doomed. Kerry REFUSED to fight when it mattered, but will make nice-nice with people who wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire.

There are more people like me out there, FED UP TO THE BACK TEETH with "go along to get along" politcians like Kerry. I may vote for him (because I have no choice), but I will not waste my time fighting for someone who wouldn't even fight for himself. After Election Day 2004, Kerry has VERY LITTLE credibility with a large group on the Left. Who wants to bust their ass for another close election, then have Kerry thrown in the towel rather than fight.

Bill Clinton today made this remark:

"This deal with Iraq makes me want to throw up. I'm sick and tired of being told that if you voted for authorization you voted for the war. It was a mistake, and I would have made it, too."

OK, it was a mistake. Setting aside for one minute how freakin' stupid you have to be to have believed Bush in the first place, when will HRC and the rest of the DemHawk coalition APOLOGIZE to the rest of us? When will the apologize to the troops? (Think Richard Clark and his apology for failing the American people).

*IF* we win this coming election and obtain control of the congress, I do not want Dems saying stupid shit like "We must get beyond who is to blame for Iraq, and find a solution."

Hell no!

A solution is fine, but I want hearings, I want investigation, I want indictments and I want impeachment. I want these despicable MoFo's to pay dearly for their arrogance, their criminal behavior. I want to see Dick Cheney and George Bush in a remake of "Judgement at Nurmeberg".

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, etc, will NOT do this?

Until the Democratic Party realizes that it's motto needs to be "In defeat, defiance. In victory, malice!" we are screwed.

We need a Captain Kirk to kick ass and take names, not a Captain Jean Luc Picard to hold meeting and ask how everyone feels. There is a time for a Picard/Kerry, now ain't it.

[blm]

183. NO WAY - There is ONLY ONE person who has EVER investigated and

exposed any part of the BFEE and that person is JOHN KERRY.

He's the only one any of us can be certain would open the books on BushInc because he's the only one who took BushInc to court to have more documents released during BCCI.

Clinton sided with GREENSPAN over Kerry on BCCI when he took office in 93.

I can't believe you don't know this. Kerry has LONG been an open government Democrat who believes people should have MORE access to government info, not less.

And it was Kerry calling for the Downing Street Memos to be investigated and only nine other senators joined him. Conyers had half the house join his letter.

Most of the Dems DON'T want an investigation, but don't lump Kerry in with them.

No one in office today has investigated and exposed more government corruption than John Kerry has so you targeting him on that subject is pretty unbelievable.

And YOU know that the machines need securing BEFORE the elections, and that was part of the voter integrity division of the DNC. You blame Kerry when you KNOW that he had no legal evidence to continue in court. Banning the electronic voting machines state by state is what you believe in - because AFTER an election is TOO late with rigged electronic machines that leave no trace. YOU know this. YOU advocate for state by state banning of the machines because THAT is where the fraud happens.

You also know that blaming Kerry as the reason completely DISTRACTS from what is actually needed to be done by the Dem PARTY and its infrastructure state by state. I'm shocked you even resorted to it. It sounds so unlike your mission.

[Kelvin Mace]

187. Once upon a time

John Kerry was a brave man who fought injustice. Like the BCI scandal.

That was along time ago.

Then he wanted to be president and sided with Bush on Iraq, gave him permission to invade based on lies my cat could see.

Then he ran for president and Swift-Boaters smeared him. Did he fight? Nope. When people attack you like that and you keep your mouth shut, they assume the accusation is true.

Then the GOP stole Ohio. Did Kerry fight? Nope he conceded the next day.

One more time, I want a presidential candidate who will fight, not one who doesn't want to make waves.

[blm]

190. You want a candidate who KNOWS the machines get rigged.

And I take it you haven't read Boehlert's book LAPDOGS. Every counter attack Kerry made against the swifts went UNREPORTED. Every speech where he attacked the swifts went UNCOVERED.

Check out the DU Research Forum - there is a data dump there on what actually went down. Did you know that one of the swifts recanted and wanted to tell his story about being lied to by the swifts and the media refused him an interview, even though they had given him airtime earlier when he was a swift?

GOP control of the voting machines is a huge issue - we fight to get it recognized nonstop since 2002 - the GOP control of media blocks us for four years and you want to believe ANy Dem can control it? Clinton couldn't stop a 5hour lieathon.

[Kelvin Mace]

197. Yes, I am aware of it all

And as long as Kerry, et al, keep playing by Republican rules they.will.lose.

Kerry also told MCM that he throught Ohio was stolen, but denied it when MCM quoted him. That was helpful

A liberal candidate who wants to win has got to look to his base and engage them, just like the GOP has done for 20+ years. The way to beat the media is NOT TO PLAY THEIR GAME. Simply STOP going onto venues that cater to the Right 90% of the time. Talk to the Jack Cafferty's, Jon Stewarts, Keith Olbermanns, Stephen Colberts, Anderson Coopers. By doing this, you become a kingmaker in the media.

Insist that if you are going to debate, it will be a REAL debate, without sillly-ass conditions. Bringthe League of Women Voters back into the game, or tell them "no debate". Simply say "no" when ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/Fox calls. Pick who you want to talk to, people who will be watched by YOUR base. Energize you base, and they can help deliver a victory.

When your opponent runs attack ads, stop responding through "spokesmen" and press releases. Instead, show up at your opponents speech and challenge them DIRECTLY on the lies in the ad. In other words make them OWN the shit they are slinging at you.

When you do ads critical of your opponent, own them. You do the voice overs, not some clown with a scary voice.

Go to the blogsphere IN FORCE. Give access to bloggers who know how to ask intelligent questions. Go where you can explain your views in DETAIL, rather than in sound bites. Only talk to newspaper columnists/reporters who do their job.

Travel the country, espeically small towns, but don't announce where you are going. Make the press WORK for their story.

Start pointing out ugly truths that NO ONE on either side wants to discuss, like why the hell are we paying congressmen $160K a year plus generous retirement and health care when they are doing a shitty job for the rest of us.

Tell Fox News to go fuck themselves (in the politest possible way).

Don't have a press secretary, answer questions yourself.

I could go on, but it is unlikely any choice of the DLC would have the spine to do what it takes to win. If we win in November, it will not because of leadership on our side, it will be by default.

[blm]

201. Everything you're saying needs to be dealt with within the PARTY - this

delusion that only ONE PERSON has to say or do anything is absurd. It sounds cool but it ain't real. INFRASTRUCTURE sets up the election system so a competent candidate CAN claim his votes. Kerry probably won by 5 million votes - so he must have done more right than you're willing to admit.

And your implication that Kerry was the choice of the DLC is another absurdity. From loathes Kerry and always has. Kerry is the senator who crafted and tried to push the Clean Money, Clean Elections bill through with Wellstone.

The DLC's preferences were Lieberman and Edwards. DLC grudglingly supported Kerry after Clinton told From he would have to since neither Lieberman or Edwards were catching on. From would have been happy to see Kerry NOT win the primary - he directed NO MONEY to Kerry in the closing months leading up to Iowa, and Kerry wasn't accepting corporate pac money, anyway. You do know that Kerry maintained the furthest left record of any DLC member, and was still further left than many nonDLC members.

Hey Dave - we should do a radio show. ;)

[Kelvin Mace]

203. Yep

Hey Dave - we should do a radio show. ;)

At least it would be entertaining.

As I said, no one would be happier for your to be right. :)

[rocktivity]

124. DING DING DING! Kelvin Mace, you're our grand prize winner!

"How will we protect the weakest in our midst—-innocent unborn children? How will our nation resist what Pope John Paul II calls a “culture of death”? How can we keep our nation from turning to violence to solve some of its most difficult problems...abortion to deal with difficult pregnancies?...

There are 1.3 million abortions each year in America. Everyone can agree that that is too many and on a shared goal of reducing the need for abortion in the first place."

Embryos are people, too? Abortion is a form of violence? Doesn't he know that not everyone is a Christian? And since when do religious leaders set social policy in this country? The only "middle ground" IS choice simply because it does NOT involve the forcing of someone else's political or social beliefs. This speech is a victory for the right because Kerry glosses over preventing unwanted pregnancies, concentrates on turning them into either adoption or a managable case of parenthood, AND DOESN'T SUPPORT CHOOSING ABORTION. The way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, not bribing or guilt-tripping women into having their babies. This speech has him waffling worse then Aunt Jemima!

:wtf:
rocknation

[blm]

150. Kerry was REPEATING WHAT THE BISHOP'S SAID - TO ANSWER WITH THE

LIBERAL READ on scripture that would be of motivation to any prolifer who is serious about reducing the number of abortions. Reduce that number by following Jesus' teachings about fulfilling the needs of our fellowbeings and neighbors.

Kerry changed conservative minds towards the liberal viewpoint and you want to complain about how he brought them step by step towards the left.

You wanted him to be confrontational instead of leading MINDFULLY - mindful of their prior set position - it's called GUIDING them toward the light. Not PUSHING them in a way to make them recoil from what you are saying.

[blm]

50. No he didn't. He specified through better HEALTHCARE, better ECONOMY

and knowledge. NOT by any form of restrictions to Roe v Wade. You are being inaccurate. He's bringing the audience of conservative students to the LEFT by educating them how the teachings of Christ are based in LIBERALISM.

How often has ANY politician chosen to teach conservative religious audience about the LIBERAL basis of Jesus' teachings?

[Kelvin Mace]

64. He talked about "reducing abortions"

This is a code phrase for restrictions, and always has been.

I am not interested in "educating" anyone on the Right, it is a waste of time. He should come back to the Left and we'll syupport a leader who supports us. A leader who wants right-wingers in his camp is not someone I will vote for or support.

Again, I want politicians who PRACTICE Christianity, not ones who TALK about it.

Better healthcare and a better economy will NOT reduce abortions. Better sex education and easy access to contraceptives will. In most sane countries, contraceptives are FREE!!

[blm]

66. He did not move right one iota on abortion rights. Your claim

otherwise is just not an accurate analysis of his words.

He said if you want fewer abortions you support economic policies where people don't HAVE to consider abortion because they can't afford a child. He never said one word about restricting abortions.

Better healthcare also encompasses health EDUCATION. That would help reduce the number of abortions.

You are caught up in code while completely ignoring what was actually said and HOW those words were used.

[Kelvin Mace]

72. Again, I have seen this pattern over and over

Personally, I think he is pandering for RW votes. "I will say this and get the wingnuts on my side, but I have no intention of pissing off my base".

This is a cynical and morally indefensible manipulation of voters.

My analysis is just as accurate as anyone elses, but time will tell whether I am right, or you are. The only difference bewteen my position and yours, is that I would be very happy to be wrong. :)

This speech was a trial baloon. If the wingnuts eat it up (his pollsters show it gets him votes on the Right while not losing him and on the Left), you will see more such things. This is the same kind of nonsense we got from Clinton over "welfare reform" (screw the poor) and "Don't ask, don't tell" (screw the gays).

[karynnj]

51. That is so wrong

He said why he is speaking of something that he has always kept private because, he said, if he didn't fill in the truth here - the RW inserts a charicature.

He always said he was a Catholic, both his daughters said in different context that he was religious. Teresa often wears crosses as jewelery. They have been seen since the election in churches in Nantucket, DC and, I think, Idaho.

He does say policies to reduce unwanted pregnancies - I would assume they would obviously be on the list. This is not a detailed legisltive program. He said before a conservative audience that he supports Rowe vs Wade.

[Kelvin Mace]

65. Many RW pols claim to support

Roe v. Wade, and then they kill it with restrictions while claiming to support ir.

This is like Lieberman claiming he supports abortion because he voted AGAINST Alito and Roberts. But he also voted FOR cloture on their nominations, insuring they would be appointed. The cloture vote was the vote that matters.

Either Kerry is moving Right, or he is pandering to the Right and is not sincere in his comments. In either case, this hardly reccomends him as a candidate worthy of my vote.

[karynnj]

78. Can I have a list of RW pols who support Roe vs Wade

I'll settle for 10, or even 5.

I forget who was the tall silver haired Senator who took all the heat for LEADING THE ALITO filibuster? The sam eone with a 100% NARAL rating. He incidentially didn't vote against the filibuster he led.

Question was Kerry ever going to get your PRIMARY vote?

[Kelvin Mace]

80. Nope. I will not vote for anyone in the primary

who voted to give Bush military power. They sold us all out.

[karynnj]

92. Bush had military power by virtue of being CIC

So, I guess the reason you are trashing this thread is NOT a genuine concern about abortion, but another IWR stand. Pretty weak.

[Kelvin Mace]

96. I would appreciate it if

you would not deign to tell me what I am sincere about. The Iraq resolution is simply one example of Kerry's fecklessness.

I am quite concerned about the abortion debate, which is why I'm on this thread.

Bush may have power, but he does not have the power to declare war. This power is exclusively reserved for the Congress.

[karynnj]

112. Look at the history of the last century

Before Afghanistan, which you could say was declared the last declared war was WWII.

There were several wars. The constitution allows the President to commit forces if he perceives a danger. That was one of the things several Senators referenced in their floor speeches. By the way, Clinton never even went to Congress for the various wars in the former Yugoslavia. (They were more successfil, though)

My comment was that you had a double digit number of posts - on a candidate you are not interested in - questioning what he specificly said. He has the same position he always had.

[Kelvin Mace]

119. Exactly!

Before Afghanistan, which you could say was declared the last declared war was WWII.

In fact, I do say that.

My reason for posting was his overt shift to the Right on abortion to curry favor for another presidential run. I also cited his unsuitability for president for his war vote.

[karynnj]

125. This is hopeless - Kerry's abortion position is

exactly where it was in 1984, when he first ran for Senate, 2004 and now - it hasn't changed. He never was FOR abortion - NO ONE is. He also believes it should be legal.

As to war, who is working harder to get the US out. He spoke against the war before it started.

I will not respond again because there is no chance either of us will change our positions on either of these issues.

[Kelvin Mace]

86. Sorry, forgot the list

Rudi Guiliani
Lincoln Chaffee
Susan Collins
Lisa Murkowski
Gordon Smith
Olympia Snowe
Arlen Specter
Ted Stevens
John Warner
Arnold Schwarzenegger

These are the prominent pols. Papa Bush was pro-choice until he got in bed with Reagan. Many of the lesser GOP pols in the congress have stated support for Roe. How sincere they are can be determined by how many restrictions they vote yes on.

[karynnj]

91. They are Republican, but certainly not right wing

except Ted Stevens who I am shocked to see there. Arnold is too weird to be categorized.

[Kelvin Mace]

94. Most of the people on this list

have backed George Bush at every step. I consider that right wing.

[karynnj]

46. How is a man with a 100% voting record

selling anyone out?

[Kelvin Mace]

68. I don't know if he is "selling out"

But he is using RW code phrases. As I said above, he is either moving Right, or pandering to the Right for votes. Either tactic is vile.

[blm]

71. Or taking the opportunity to open the eyes of conservatives who are only

exposed to the RW interpretation of the Bible.

Kucinich could have given this liberal manifesto.

[Bridget Burke]

59. So many DU'ers would rather slag other Democrats.....

Than say something unkind about The Boy King.

(Kerry was only amplifying views he mentioned back in 2004.)

[politicasista]

74. I agree.

It only makes Gore and Feingold's supporters look bad when they bash other Dems just to promote their candidates.

[Kelvin Mace]

82. Really?

Gore and Feingold opposed the war. Kerry supported it. Given an opportunity to reconsider it, he AGAIN supported it.

Yet I am supposed to line up and kiss his ass because the DLC is going to try and ram him down my throat again?

Not going to happen.

[politicasista]

85. And you're letting Bush off the hook

by saying they "opposed" the war and saying that IWR is a vote for war. Sorry, but you still make them look bad by calling one that is fighting for YOU and wanting to end the war a sell out.


Why don't you list all of Feingold's tough and principal battles he has taken on? I don't remember him leading the filabuster and he was on the Judiciary committee. He may have voted against the Patriot act, but he voted FOR Ashcroft and Roberts, and how come he hasn't said anything about the Downing Street Memo, which PROVES that Bush would have invaded Iraq without a vote, but you would rather blame and bash Democrats just to promote Gore and Feingold, which makes them look bad.

The war is not going to end sooner and our soldiers are not going to get home any faster if we keep blaming Democrats for a vote that wouldn't have mattered.


THIS IS BUSH'S ILLEGAL WAR!!


Good luck finding the "perfect" candidate to pass your "liberal" exam.


I stand by my post.

[Kelvin Mace]

88. To clarify

by saying they "opposed" the war and saying that IWR is a vote for war. Sorry, but you still make them look bad by calling one that is fighting for YOU and wanting to end the war a sell out.

If they voted for the IWR, they sold us out. The Constitution EXPLICITLY places the power to make war in the hands of the Congress. Congress punted and told Bush, "Whatever you want, Boss."

Few had the guts to stand up and reject this abdication of repsonsibility. To say you were hoodwinked by Bush is not a sterling endorsement of your intellgience or judgement. Even now, after we have been proven ABSOLUTELY correct in our assement of the situation, folks like Kerry still claim they voted the right way.

The Vichey Dems voted FOR the war because their pollsters and the Inside the Beltway Cool Kids Club told them they would lose the next election if they didn't. Strangely, very few folks who voted against the war lost their seats.

I'll be DAMNED if I will support someone with no spine.

[Kelvin Mace]

81. Let's see,

let me check my blog.

I think my ratio of nasty things about Bush v. Kerry is something on the order of 1000:1.

So, please, explain to me how I prefer to bash Kerry and not Baby Bush.

I loath Bush. I also loath his enablers, which would include folks like John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Hilary Clinton.

[bling bling]

99. Well, you better get some more paper.

Because the list is a whole lot longer than that. How come people always pick the same 3 people to hate over the IWR? Where's your animosity towards an enabler such as, say, Max Cleland, is he dead to you too?

You'd think Hillary and Kerry and Lieberman were on some IWR committee all by themselves the way people ALWAYS mention them but NEVER mention anyone else.

Is Max Cleland dead to you too? Do you loathe him too?

[Kelvin Mace]

128. Why are you asking if I loath

Cleland? I never claimed to loath Kerry or Clinton. Also, Cleland has never run for presdient, nor is he a presidential contender, so I have never had to vote for him, nor am I likely to have to.

You hsve taken something I said about Bush, and applied it to people I have never said such a thing about.

You also failed to answer why you claim I spend all my time bashing Dems, but give Baby Bush a free ride. This is demonstrably not true, but rather than retract the claim, you go off on tangent and accuses me of saying things I never said.

[bling bling]

138. Au contraire!

You most certainly did claim to loathe Kerry and Clinton. Your words, and I quote:

"I loath Bush. I also loath his enablers, which would include folks like John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Hilary Clinton."

Up to this point, your primarily stated reason for hating such enablers has been related to their vote on the IWR, without any particular stated regard to the enablers previous or future presidential aspirations.

I would appreciate seeing consistency from those who claim to despise Clinton (or Kerry for that matter) due to her "yea" vote on the IWR matter. If Clinton is an enabler, then so is Cleland. As far as the troops sitting in Iraq at this moment and those lying in cemetaries are concerned, the "yea" vote of Cleland had as much weight as Clinton's. The "yea" vote of Reid had as much weight as Kerry's. It is not, therefore, acceptable to justify the double standards for Clinton or Kerry while giving everyone else a free pass.

That's my point. It's not just you who does this. It has become commonplace with many others and I bring up this point whenever I see the opportunity.

As to your last sentence, you must have thought I was another poster who you were debating something with earlier because I never claimed that you give shrubby a free ride.

[Kelvin Mace]

145. My error,

I apologize.

To be fair to all parties concerned, I should state that I loathe Bush, and I loathe the actions of those who enable them. I've also stated in other posts that I will not vote for these people in primaries, but will reluctantly support them in a general election. Which is precisely what I did in 2004.

[judaspriestess]

25. Kerry should be urging birth control

why is that so hard to do?

[rodeodance]

146. he does urge prevention---of his primary means of preventing abortions

[ckramer]

28. Is this really a freedom for girls?

"No." I state plainly. "I am not married. I've been in a relationship for several years and I have three children, I don't want a fourth." I respond tersely."



Democrats need to think twice to endorse life style like this for girls.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

37. That poster is not a girl

She is a grown woman who has made the choice not to marry. Maybe she doesn't believe in the institution. Many feminists don't.

What lifestyle do you propose to endorse to girls? The same old tired refrain of "better get that ring on your finger!" If that's your thing you'll find a lot of company over on that other website.

Here's a thought: How about everyone get out of the lifestyle endorsing business and concentrate on their own lives and families?

[ckramer]

38. Anything but repeat abortions for girls or women

[mopinko]

55. ok, how about endorsing as many abortions as needed

and not have the politicians decide how many that is. what part of






don't you and the senator get??

[ckramer]

114. "keep your law off my body" is all good; but abortion is a little bit

more than just your body, don't you think?

Democrats should not take the concept of presonal freedom to extreme.

[Scout]

135. there is nothing extreme about being pro-choice

the extremists are the ones who think they can tell women what to do with their bodies. It's no one else's business what I do or do not do with the contents of my own uterus.

[ckramer]

228. Oh, you are wrong

Extremism cuts both ways.

Don't think there are no extremists within the democratic party.

[Scout]

229. pro-choice is letting the pregnant woman make up her own mind

and do what she sees as best for her.

How is that extreme?

[Megahurtz]

191. Right On!

:applause:

[American Tragedy]

63. Biting Beaver is divorced from an abusive husband.

Not that it should matter, for God's sake.

[Zhade]

202. Just who the hell do you think you are?

Who put you in charge of judging others' way of life?

No one, that's who.

The 'lifestyle' in the case of the woman you cite is HERS, and it's none of your, or my, fucking business one way or the other.

[sugapablo]

31. Can we change the language of this debate?

I dunno. So many (on both sides) want to keep it alive just how it is. They want to "win" this argument. No compromise will do.

This country is becoming increasingly polarized (as evidenced by this forum) and this serves no one's interests except for those who take advantage for their own personal gains at the nation's expense.

We progressives talk here amongst ourselves. They (conservatives) talk on their web forums. If one of us goes there or if one of them comes here to express opinions, they're labeled as "trolls" and no doubt, a flame war will ensue.

This abortion issue has been a tough one in my head. Of course I can't condone a government's intervention in someone's medical choices, whether it be a pregnancy, alternative cancer treatments, etc., but on the other hand, since the birth of my daughter, I find abortion to be a heartbreaking event. One I find that I can't dwell on too intensely.

Do we want people to have choice when it comes to their bodies? Yes.
Do we want women aborting fetuses? No. (do you?)

So why can't we change the language of this debate where we allow every woman the choice, only we get to the point culturally where no woman would want or need to make the choice to have an abortion?

High and lofty goal? Yes.
Worth it? I think so.

[StoryTeller]

33. I agree with you. Thanks for saying it. (NT)

[CTyankee]

39. Pro- choicers did not start this fight

Letting women make up their own minds about whether and when to bear a child was what the prochoice movement wanted. We have been in a defensive posture ever since the antichoicers started trying to take that decision away from women. So this "language on both sides" argument to me is disingenuous. I don't know what prochoice language the poster is alluding to.

"So why can't we change the language of this debate where we allow every woman the choice, only we get to the point culturally where no woman would want or need to make the choice to have an abortion?" I don't believe any woman wants to have an abortion, so that is the proverbial straw man argument. If a woman has children to care for and feels she simply cannot, financially and emotionally, have another child, then that to me is a moral choice. It is moral choice for a woman who feels she cannot be a mother or if she will be damaged physically or emotionally from childbearing. Or if she feels she cannot take on the burden of a child with disabilities.

I have had 3 children, all of whom were welcomed joyously and responsibly into this world. AFter my 3rd child I had a pregnancy scare (it was a false alarm)and wondered how I would get a abortion (it was pre-Roe). I was totally frightened at the thought of how I could possibly care for a 4th child. My duty was to my 3 wanted and treasured children already here, looking to me each day for food, sustenance, clothing and shelter. Just as important was my time, energy and emotional strength to be able to nurture another child. That was a moral issue.

[sugapablo]

47. Follow up

"I don't believe any woman wants to have an abortion, so that is the proverbial straw man argument."

When I say want, I mean "decide". I also said "want or need" trying to illustate that point.

As for the rest, if you find your side (my side too) blameless, that you're just "playing defense" and it's only "they" who need to change, with no room for discussion..well then...I guess my question (which was just that, a question) is answered. I suppose we CAN'T change this debate and it will continue to be a polarizng argument that continues to degrade the political discourse of this country.

That sucks. :(

And if you're curious ("I don't know what prochoice language the poster is alluding to"), even the "titles" used, both "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" are parts of the political language used today that make an attempt to "color" the "other side" in a negative light.

I mean hell, here you jump all over me and I'M ON YOUR SIDE. :) I'm a strict Pro-Choice-er. But even my questions apparently get people tense. :)

[CTyankee]

67. "blameless"

If you remember back to the early days of the abortion rights struggle (which I do), it was never to convince women to GET an abortion because it was cool or politically correct or whatever cockamamie reason the antichoicers dreamed up ("fit into a prom dress" for instance). It was based on a need, which I know you have acknowledged and agree with, not to be a victim of a back alley, botched abortion and to be able to control one's life.

I can't for the life of me understand what prochoice language you consider to be "blameworthy". We have said that women are moral agents, capable of making moral decisions having to do with abortion. Prochoicers honor that. The choice to have an abortion is not easy. Having an abortion is not easy and it is not cheap, either economically or in terms of emotional anguish.

The words "prochoice" and "antichoice" are simply shorthand, but it is important to understand why we use the word choice in our "titles". It is because the other side uses "pro-life" as if we do not honor life, which we do. To honor fetal existence (or even pre-fetal, as in fertilized ova before implantation, which the other side refers to as an unborn child) and totally disregard the living, breathing woman demotes her to the level of a vessel, a womb, nothing more. That is why we make it into more of a moral issue -- choice implies moral agency, does it not? - because it does bring into play the ethical decision-making a woman must go through.

I am not attacking you because you seek a society that is more equal economically and culturally for women. But that is not the end all and be all on this issue. If, at the end of the day, there is no more economic issue, women are never again raped and birth control never fails, we may get there but until we do, I think the prochoice side is not somehow to be blamed for its arguments and its "titles."

[sugapablo]

75. *shakes head*

I think you're focusing on specific words ("want", "blame") that you find distasteful at the expense of the argument.

Neither side is to be "blamed" for wanting what they want.

Both sides are to blame for how we've come to where we are today, and I'll repeat myself at the expense of repeating myself, and that's at a polarizing issue that's poisoning the overall political debate in this country.

I mean hell, we have factory workers voting away their jobs, their social security, their medicare, their everything because of this one issue!

Once we get to a place where there is no room for compromise, we have trouble. Trouble for this country and all of us who live in it.

You have your morals. They have theirs. Who's right? Is anyone right when it comes to morals? From one's point of view perhaps, nowhere else.

Instead of calling "your side" blameless, and resisting all who might not agree with you, perhaps you should ask yourself A) What it is you REALLY want and B) How best (for everyone) to get it.

[CTyankee]

101. No, what I really want is the argument that you say "blames" us

and I haven't heard it.

What I really want: 1)Roe v. Wade as it was decided. 2)Income equality between women and men which is probably doable, 3)perfect birth control which is getting there(especially with EC), and 4)a rape free world (why don't you answer that question for me?).

That would probably do most of it, don't you think?

OK, I answered the hard questions you asked. Now, would you please just answer my question? What (besides the "choice" title which I have explained to exhaustion previously)is our "blameworthy" language? Specifics, please.

[sugapablo]

122. My point proven.

No point in continuing. Business as usual can now proceed. Enjoy! :)

[Lars39]

48. There will always be women who will 'want' an abortion.

I would 'want' an abortion if something was horribly wrong with the fetus.
I would 'want' an abortion if I could not support the child.
I would 'want' an abortion if I never wanted children and my birth control failed.

I do not want to live in a society where it is 'culturally' unacceptable to have an abortion.
I want to live in a society where it is no one else's damn business if, when, or why I have an abortion.

[sugapablo]

54. I think you missed my point....

"I would 'want' an abortion if something was horribly wrong with the fetus."

Why? What's "horribly wrong"? What if the support was there that even if there was something wrong, you could raise the child in a manner that would benefit both of you? Would that change your mind? Would you at least be open to hear that argument out?


"I would 'want' an abortion if I could not support the child."

Well what if we could create a society where no mother would ever feel she could not support a child? Impossible? I don't think it's impossible.


"I would 'want' an abortion if I never wanted children and my birth control failed."

Perhaps there could be incentive for you to decide otherwise?


"I do not want to live in a society where it is 'culturally' unacceptable to have an abortion."

I never said "culturally unacceptable". Not once. Having a culture where no woman would want one is MUCH different than one where it was "unacceptable".


"I want to live in a society where it is no one else's damn business if, when, or why I have an abortion."

Me too. And believe it or not THAT'S what I'm aiming for. :)

As long as this abortion debate continues as is, it seems like it's EVERYBODY'S business, whether they like it or not.


And remember, these are questions. Questions are good. Stay open to them. You don'y have to like another man's answers, but never get mad about the questions.

[Lars39]

56. It's too easy to edge towards forced pregnancies when you want

a female to justify why she would want to have or need to have an abortion.

[sugapablo]

58. Sure is...

...that's why I wasn't suggesting that women need "justify" anything. :)

All I'm saying is.... *sigh*

Are we just so locked into the current political mode (we/they) that we can't even see that another is possible?

Some abortions will always exist, regardless of laws. If the US Constitution banned abortions tomorrow, abortions would still continue. In doctor's offices, in people's homes, and in far worse places! (This is the fear.)

Pro-Lifers need to be made to understand this. Just as Pro-Choicers need to realize that discussion of "what can we do as a society to reduce the decisions to abort" is a discussion worth having. One that should be had openly without anger, and without fear of eventual "forced pregnancies" or other invasions of privacy.

There is common ground believe it or not. NO ONE wants fetuses aborted. No one.

So where do we go from there?

Well one question to be asked: What would reduce the amount of abortions in this country the most? Laws? Or open and frank dialogue at every level of society (schools, public, dinner table, media)?

I'm betting the latter. But I'm one who defintely is a firm believer that dialogue, no matter how difficult the topic, is always a better option than fighting.

But maybe that's just me.

[CTyankee]

103. But prochoicers have addressed the need to reduce abortions

Where have you been lately? Planned Parenthood talks about this ALL THE TIME!! Hello??? When I worked for PP of CT our 18 health centers all across the state offered access to EC by having a 24/7 clinician on call to take calls from women needing EC. PPC's statewide education dept. efforts spread to 6 college campuses statewide to educate women on birth control, AIDS and other STDs. There is no organization in this country that has done more to prevent unwanted pregnancies than Planned Parenthood!

Please stop talking about how prochoice organizations (such as Planned Parenthood) are somehow responsible or blameworthy of abortions in this country. It is a lie.

This is no "equal blame on both sides" argument.

[LostinVA]

110. Bingo -- good post

[blm]

160. Planned Parenthood reduces number of abortions advocating liberal policies

that emphasize healthcare education.

Planned Parenthood has helped to decrease the number of abortions through their education and prevention policies more than ANY prolife organization has.

[Scout]

137. I would "want" an abortion because i don't want to be pregnant

and there is no other solution to that.

[karynnj]

53. Great post - and I think what the Senator is aiming at

[Scout]

136. Do we want women aborting fetuses? No. (do you?)

it doesn't matter what you do or do not want, unless the fetus is inside of you.

Your "wants" are not sufficient justification to interfere in a decision to terminate a pregnancy that is not yours.

[Megahurtz]

192. Bravo!

:applause:

[melody]

52. Yeah, there's that brave John Kerry who "stood up" to Bush

Taking the middle-road/non-road/bypass again.

I wonder how many times he can fall on his sword?

[blm]

62. You didn't read the speech did you? Kerry gave the LIBERAL VIEWPOINT

of Bible teachings and moved the conservative audience to the LEFT. Something more lawmakers should do instead of moving towards the RW viewpoint.

Dennis Kucinich could have given this speech - the CURRENT Kucinich.

[melody]

69. Yes, I did read this speech

I am sick to DEATH of American candidates having to support religious platitudes. I'm an agnostic.
For John Kerry (a symbol of American progressives, unfortunately, due to his being the Democratic
nominee) to stand up and kiss up to the US anti-choice religious community with ANY discussion
about freely limiting what is a simple medical procedure, the "ethical" limits of which should be
up to the individual to determine in a non-religious country like this one is supposed to be, is
sickening to me. Just one more nail in his political coffin, as far as I'm concerned.

[blm]

73. I'm an atheist and I saw him giving the LIBERAL view of Jesus teachings

and sounding exactly like Kucinich.

He said NOTHING about LIMITING the ACCESS or limiting the legality of abortions. NOTHING. And anyone who claims he did has a reading comprehension problem.

He is saying that if people are sincere in their prolife beliefs they would support OTHER ways to reduce abortion, like better economic policies where more people can AFFORD to have children. And better healthcare policies where people are given better access to health EDUCATIOn which would reduce number of abortions.

In NO WAY did he say there should be ANY restrictions on abortion - and I can't believe anyone would read this speech and come away with that demonstrably false interpretation.

[melody]

76. We'll just have to agree to disagree

I saw yet more couched rhetoric appeasing the fascist right.

When one recommends limiting abortions by any means (short of something obviously inhumane), then one is kissing up to
the anti-choice community, imho.

[blm]

77. By presenting LIBERAL POLICIES as the best way to approach it, HAH..

you have got to be kidding. No practical person can see anything wrong with using liberal policies to reduce abortions - fer chrissakes, that's what PLANNED PARENTHOOD is all about.

Reduced to hah. My guess is that PLANNED PARENTHOOD would disagree with you.

[melody]

84. HAHAHAHAH does not constitute an argument

It's a primate vocalization used when the primate has run out of excrement.

You've taken *my comment* out of context, just as you attacked me for doing to JK.
If you need to win a war you're fighting, then by all means, claim your victory.
I'm not trying to win anything, I'm trying to discuss the things I think are important.

I still maintain the man is nothing but a low-profile DLC-leaning do-nothing. End of
discussion on my end of things. Carrying it on from here would be pointless.

[LostinVA]

111. I agree with you, blm

And, I'm staunchly pro choice. My whole family is Catholic (except me!), and ALL of them are pro choice, and all believe in sex education in schools -- regardless of which way they vote.

[karynnj]

163. What limit did he mention - I saw NONE

In front of a very conservative crowd, he reaffirmed his status as being a Roe vs Wade supporter. Senator Kerry has never, to my knowledge, said that others should believe like him or to believe at all. Even in his personal life, he is very close to a brother and his who converted to Judaism.

Reading this I don't see "platitudes". Every person has many factors which shape their world view. The factors include their own past lives and what they have seen, the cultures they have lived in, the subjects they have studied, the books they have read, the people they have interacted with, and sometimes the faith they were given or accepted. People had no problem with accepting that what he saw in Vietnam forged much of what he thought about war. Everyone is now saying that McCain's years as a POW inform his thoughts on torture. Faith is just one ascpect.

I don't know the religion of most possible 2008 contendors, but the onece I do know claim they are religious to some degree. Kerry, as Catholic; Gore as Southern Baptist; Hillary as methodist; Feingold as Jewish - with a sister, who is a Rabbi. I doubt this speech will either hurt Kerry or help him win a nomination. It can help him define himself as who he is. We all know the charicature the RW chose - even if he never ran again Senator Kerry would want to define himself as the person of integrity he is.

[melody]

168. I don't care what his religion is

It's none of my business. I don't like it when someone uses their own arbitrary "moral"
opinions to hold forth on abortion or any other private medical issue. I'm sick of religion as
a basis for public debate. I don't care if it's Tom Cruise or John Kerry. If somebody wants to
believe in the Tooth Fairy, that's their right, but when they stand up and tell us all to stop
chewing gum because of something the Tooth Fairy told him, then I draw the line.

The implication of abortion being "bad" is there, whenever he suggests it be limited by any means,
informed by his own religious opinion. Simple therapeutic abortion is no more or less morally reprehensible in a public, non-denominational setting than a tooth extraction. No one forces religious people to have abortions. If they did,
I'd be the first one on my feet protesting.

[karynnj]

170. Did he force you to read it?

If he came over to your house and refused to leave until you read the entire thing - maybe, twice - that was wrong of him. There are many things that politicians speak about that is either irrelvent or uninteresting to me. My number one category would be - sports. I could care less if a candidate likes the Red Sox or the Patriots or the Celtics or NASCAR. That people are more interested that they know every team, major player and sports areana is very strange.

What is a Therapeutic abortion? For every woman I have ever known, having an abortion would never be equated with a tooth being extracted.

[melody]

171. He's a Senator, every position he takes, impacts me

This isn't an everyday individual. He's a political figure of some note and a former Presidential nominee. His positions reverberate far beyond his own perspective.

A therapeutic abortion is anything that benefits the patient, to whatever degree -- it's a simple, doctor's office procedure.

What the abortion is or is not to any woman is the business of that individual woman and not the province of public debate.
There is no single moral public perspective, so therefore, it should have no moral component outside the opinions of individual
people. And we already know our own moral context.

[karynnj]

161. This is a personsl candid statement of his own faith and spirituality

It is not political.

This is not about fighting. Nor is it middle of the road. What Senator Kerry seems to have done his is shown some of the framework which guides his believes. You may not like that it is religious, but, as his own daughters said in 2004, he is a religious person. If you look at the list of 10 bullet point things he wanted Democrats to stand for - which was easily the sound bite that rated highest in a Luntz focus group* - you will see that these are all things he includes here.

As others have said this is a very ambitious attempt to explain a Christian basis to liberal policy. Kerry is not a theologian (nor am I), but this is an incredible personal statement.

[melody]

169. Everything a Senator does or says is political

To me, this is just more of an example of why Kerry is not the person I can support as the Democratic
nominee. If he is the nominee, I'll support him, but I hope that is not the case.

[karynnj]

172. You have an Al Gore icon,

He and Senator Kerry entered the Senate at the same time. For many years they voted on the same abortion bills, refresh my mind on their relevant votes. If I remember, in the shorter time he was in the Senate, he did not have a lifetime 100% NARAL rating.

What was his opinion on Clinton's DOMA bill?
Did you agree with Tipper's labelling of record albums?

I have no problem with you not supporting Kerry - just as I hope you do not have a problem with me not supporting Gore if he runs in the primaries.

Why accept in Gore, what you feel compelled to condemn in Kerry?

[melody]

196. we're discussing Kerry

I feel Gore is a much stronger candidate for a variety of reasons than Kerry, but that's another matter entirely.

[karynnj]

216. Then post why AL Gore is great - is there a reason to attack other

Democrats - on issues you give your own candidate a pass on. You've posted a number of posts on this thread attacking Kerry as not sufficiently supporting abortion - an issue he has a 100% rating on.

It is not necessary to attack Kerry (unfairly here) to praise Gore. I have no problem with Gore. I voted for him in 2000, though I preferred my Senator in the primary. Kerry himself actually treated Gore well, giving him a speech at Kerry's convention - even though Gore, like Carter was almost an outcast to the powers in the party at that time. Kerry also, unlike either Clinton, praised Gore when he (Kerry) gave a speech on energy alternatives this summer. It was largely based on his 2004 plan.

"In the last month Al Gore’s "Inconvenient Truth" has brought the science to millions of Americans in a dramatic and persuasive way. Al was an early leader and a visionary on climate change – and if he had not just been elected but been inaugurated as President, America today would be the world’s leading advocate, not the world’s leading opponent of climate change. "

The reason I mention this is that it would be great if all Democrats (including me and other Kerry supporters) praised the work of other Democrats when they thought it was warranted. Doing so, took nothing away from Kerry's own work, but praising Gore and Carter DID implicitly establish a Democratic claim to their own past.

In the Pepperdine speech, Kerry in addition to giving people a closer view of who he is was challanging the view that Republicans were the "Values" party.

[melody]

223. What does Gore have to do with Kerry's opinions on abortion?

We're not discussing Gore at all, we're discussing Kerry.

When a topic comes up where Gore is discussed, then we'll discuss Gore. My choice of a candidate
to back is far more complicated than one issue. When topics come up regarding Gore, then we'll
discuss those matters then, if you like.

At this point, we've wandered way off-topic, and thus I'll leave my comments at that.

[karynnj]

225. My point is hypocrisy - and the topic was not just Kerry, but abortion

You posted many many pretty intolerant posts implying that Kerry's position on abortion could interfere with your rights and was a reason he shouldn't be president. You ignored ALL of Senator Kerry's record, which is better than Gore's, on this.

From your posts, ANY view that abortion had any connection to morality was sufficient to reject a candidate - even if he re-affirmed his support of Roe vs Wade in a speech before a conservative group. You, however don't hold your own candidate to that standard - which to me implies that you are simply looking for reasons to attack Kerry.

I do know that when Kerrygoddess posted Kerry's energy speech, Gore people were quite happy to speak about Gore's views on that thread - which was fine by me. I think the problem here is that you know that NO serious candidate will take the position you took on "therapeutic" abortions.

[VegasWolf]

57. What is wrong with abortions? Statistics show that children who grow

up in homes where they are not wanted tend to end up in lives of crime most often. If a parent does not want the responsibility of raising a child, they will not be good parents, and the children will suffer. Orphanages are already filled with unwanted children. Seems like people only want to adopt blond, blue-eyed children predominately.

[ckramer]

113. Don't want the kid? How about don't get pregnant in the first place

That would be a more sensible solution, imo.

Take responsibility in fucking. That's all I try to say.

[VegasWolf]

116. That is much easier said than done. No perfect people in this world.

And then there is the issue of forced rape. The issue of teenagers controlled by their hormones. And just plain accidents. Abortion is a real solution for the real world. The alternative of bringing a child into this world unwanted is far worse.

[CTyankee]

139. OK, you go first! If you are male, that means abstinence or

a vasectomy (condoms can break). Take responsibility in fucking. That's all I try to say.

[Megahurtz]

193. Lol! Perfect! n/t

[Megahurtz]

194. Uh, an unwanted pregnacy is not meant to be a mandatory punishment

just because a female fucks, or gets fucked!....ya think???:think:

[Zhade]

208. Again - who the FUCK do you think you are?

YOUR personal sense of Puritanical prudery doesn't get to dictate what women do with their bodies. FUCKING. PERIOD.

Go join Freeperville if you want to advocate against women's right to control their own bodies.

[GeorgiaDem69]

210. Wow!

Talk about open to other ideas. Why don't you go join the Republican party? Uh, what's the statement? Oh, its FUCKING, PERIOD.

Maybe the correct answer to whether there should be unrestricted access to abortion is that, regardless of your deluded sense of self-determination, society can implement reasonable restrictions to protect unborn children.

[Crowdance]

213. Just when I think I've heard it all. "Deluded sense of self-determination"

These arguments just get increasingly nuttier. "Self-determination--you just leave that to the men-folk, Missy. Just don't be getting the idea that you are an adult human being capable of making your own moral decision. Might need to lock you up to keep you away from that delusion..."

Enjoy your stay.:crazy:

[GeorgiaDem69]

217. That's bullshit and you know it

Its NOT just about being able to "make your own moral decision." Its about whether or not any person has the right, at any time, to terminate the life of the fetus. The law says you do, but the law also restricts that right. There is no absolute right to an abortion and if NARAL and the idiots on this board don't realize that and stop attacking people who even hint that abortion is a "bad" thing (it is) then the "right" to an abortion is going to become even more restricted.

[Crowdance]

218. So many adjectives, so little logic. n/t

[Scout]

230. abortion is a "bad" thing (it is)

sez you

your opinion that abortion is "bad" is not sufficient justification to interfere with a woman's decision about her pregnancy.

[ckramer]

214. Nobody is trying to dictate what women can do with their bodies here

What's the purpose of a woman performing abortion repeatly? Why does a woman perform abortion repeatly when she can avoid it? (let's exclude the cases of rape and incest here)

It's harmful to her body, it's harmful to the 'tissue or baby' (depending on your own belief) that she's trying to get rid of.

So why is the call for reducing this kind of activity a bad call, or a partisan call?

I don't see this a democratic issue nor a republican issue. It's a health issue to women. It's not an abortion right issue either, imo.

Abortion should be legal, but abusing that freedom is stupid too. That's how I understand what John Kerry has to say.

[CTyankee]

220. Tender concern for babies makes me weep

A few years ago a poli-sci prof in California did an empirical study comparing states with more restrictions on access to abortion to those states that had fewer restrictions on access to abortion. She then looked at their laws relative to support for child welfare, adoption of children with disabilities and penalties against domestic abuse of pregnant women. She found that the most prochoice states gave MORE support and protection for women and children and the LEAST support among the antichoice states.

WEll, well, doncha love empirical studies?

If I were you, I'd go dig up that study and read it. It will give you something to think about before you start talking again about women and abortion.

[greccogirl]

130. Statistics also show

that children in single parent families tend to have much greater chances of trouble too and I don't believe that either.

[VegasWolf]

156. Okay, so what do you believe in if not measurements. nt

[goforit]

90. Whata putz!! Can someone shut this skull and bone ass up.

[bling bling]

100. It's a good, in fact, it's a wonderful discussion.

We should all pay attention to the Dems taking the lead on changing the framework of this discussion. It's important. Kerry's right about what he's saying. I can't believe the level of disrespect he's getting considering how supportive he's been to women's rights. I don't even think people have read what he's saying before spouting nonsense and insults.

[wisteria]

107. I fail to see how you could not see this as a means to begin honest and

not political discussions about a serious issue. And then, you bring in S&B which is just stupid. I suppose you just posted to bash. You really don't have anything intelligent to add to the discussion.

[VegasWolf]

117. At this point the only Democrat I favor is for '08 Feingold. nt

[karynnj]

126. Let's see:

Kerry makes intelligent, moving speech on his religious beliefs.
Gofnit makes obnoxious rude vulgar comment

Which one would more people want to hear? the honorable Senator Kerry
Which one should grow up, get some manners and some sense? the assinine gofont

You obviously didn't want to read the Senator's speech, so I really don't know why you are here. What makes you so obsessed with threads on the Senator?

[Generator]

115. This would all be well and good if

the other side wasn't firmly, constantly, expressely, absolutely with pure moral ceritude and some nice supreme court judges in their corner trying to take abortion away. That's the problem. Timing. I feel threatened by THAT, not worried about the language that my side uses. I already know they think I'm a murderer for believing in these basic choices-abortion and assisted suicide both. I've gotten over it. Call me whatever the hell you want, but don't take my rights away.

Is that what our Dems are worried about? Or are they only worried about getting votes for themselves so they can then sell us out on the votes that matter most-see the Supreme Court. I know Kerry hasn't done this.

But the timing stinks. The house is burning and he's worried about how we describe the heat. I say put the fire out first.

Fuck it. There is no common ground. You either support these rights or you don't. This is probably the most B.S. ever. The common ground means, heh those that are pro-choice don't really in their heart of hearts want to murder babies either! Let's find a way to stop them from having so many abortions! Let's get them to give the kid up instead! Financial incentives! Whoo hoo! Money talks.Does Kerry have a pregnancy home he's supporting now?

"Overly partisan" WHAT? Ahh-you can vote for a Democrat you see-we aren't all murderers. If you talk nicely to the liberals-you can save a baby!

I don't have a party anymore, apparently. I do have what I believe in. I'm never sure about THEM.

[karynnj]

134. If this were all Kerry was doing I would agree, but

He is trying to change the balance in the Congress by helping candidates and raising money

He put a huge amount of effort into the Alito filibuster for which he took a huge amount of ridicule. He has spoken of the fact that Democrats could have won this. There were more than the 41 Senators needed for the filibuster on cloture who voted against him on the real vote. The problem is all those Senators who wanted to SAY they voted against him who really didn't - as they didn't on the cloture vote.

Kerry mentioned in the second debate that Teresa was involved with helping people who made choices other than abortion - whether it's a pregnancy home, I don't remember.

I think on this and other issues, Kerry wants to heal the huge rift in this country. I lived through the 60s. There were rifts then, but in a way the sides were closer. It was intergenerational more than it was one whole population disliking and demonizing the other.

Kerry spoke on the floor of the Senate last week on Boehner's comments. Not in anger, but in an appeal to his Senate peers on the other side to reject this. None came running up - which I doubt surprised Kerry. This really has to start happening.

The closest I saw was when the Republicans and many Democrats were really being very nasty to Kerry over the Iraq bill, Senator Warner accepted an offer to debate. Senator Warner was extremely respectful - disagreed but complimented parts of it, while saying the timing was wrong. He also went off on a tangent when each had mentioned VN, to state the he as Secreatary of the Navy had reviewed Kerry's Silver Star and he desered it. When Warner and Kerry started the siloguy, it was very obvious how grateful Kerry was for the kindness showed. (The difference in his face made it clear how stressful the Senate is for a principled Democrat at this time.)

[VegasWolf]

120. In Freakonomics, one of the premire economists of our time credits Roe

with reducing crime. Children growing up in homes where they are uncared for, unloved, or raised by just plain nogood parents, often turn to lives of crime. Abortion is a real solution for the world, not just a panacea like "just say no" which is a proven failure.

[HockeyMom]

123. My Aunt - Not your typical abortion case

I have talked about this before. She was in her mid 40s, married (faithful) for 25 years, a mother, and a grandmother. Yes, this was back in the 1940s when BC methods were not as advanced as today, but they both faithfully used condoms and diaphragms and only had one child by choice. My Aunt had started menopause and hadn't had a period for 6 months when they thought it was "safe" to stop using BC. She got pregnant when she was 45 and my Uncle was 50. Their grandson was 2 years old at the time.

Give her financial support to have more children? Ridiculous and hardly necessary. They not only owned their own home outright, but she told me she paid a "hefty" sum of money to her OB/GYN for her therapeutic abortion for her "heart condition". It wasn't just the fact that they didn't want anymore children at their ages, my Aunt also didn't want to go through another pregnancy given all the problems she had back when she was still in her 20s.

Adoption the solution? In talking to my Aunt, that was not an option. She did not want to go through the trauma of pregnancy to have a child and then have it "out there somewhere being raised by who knows who". I would guess that would also be a major reason why so few of the frozen IVF embryos will ever become Snowflake babies either.

I can remember telling her that my husband had a vasectomy after our second was born. We decided long before we married that we wanted two and only two. Are you aware that the most common form of birth control today is not the Pill, but Sterilization? Look at the statistics if you don't believe me. My Aunt applauded our foresight and said she wished they had the options couples do today (1980s then). I had this talk with her when she was in her 80's, not long before she passed away. She told me she had never regretted the decision they made.

Basically, all choice is individual. One size does NOT fit all, and never will.

[greccogirl]

132. Middle aged women going through menopause are sometimes

very fertile even if they haven't had a period in forever. That is one of the "be very careful" times. A friend of my sisters, hadn't had a period in two years, she got pregnant at 52 - her husband was 67 and had just had heart attack/stroke.

This ended well because they had the baby and he is simply wonderful. Her husband is in his 70's now, she her 60's, and the kid is really a cool kid. He's younger than her granddaughter (she only has one).

The one thing that struck me was the amount of cruel remarks I heard made towards them especially John. The jokes, etc etc. I wanted to slap some of them.

She knew she could easy abort and considered it, but decided against it. Even her own family (her daughter) acted like they were MAD at her and embarrassed. What jerks.

[HockeyMom]

205. Tell me about it

It took me 3 years to go through menopause. Fortunately for me, my husband had a vasectomy at 35 and since I only had one fallopian tube (ruptured ectopic pg), the odds of pregnancy were nil. That is another entire thread. Again, we wanted to make damned sure we had no more kids.

My Uncle died at 62, so my Aunt would have been raising a child ALL ALONE in her 50s and 60s. I cannot speak for anyone else, but since I am 57 right now, I know physically and mentally I could not handle that, especially ALONE.

As I said before, one size does NOT fit all.

[Scout]

131. Roe v. Wade *IS* common ground. Don't mess with it. n/t

[karynnj]

165. He isn't messing with Roe vs Wade

nor has he ever.

[GeorgiaDem69]

211. Roe v. Wade has been messed with for the last 20 years

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

152. That's what he did do - if you read the whole speech you would know that.

He's telling these young conservatives that if they were serious about the prolife position they'd concern themselves with the issues of poverty and healthcare and education of people to help reduce the number of abortions through LLIBERAL POLICIES.

[karynnj]

164. Did you read the speech

He does speak of reducing poverty and increasing education, which in many cases will help on stupidity. As one of the first people in a progressive state to open a rape counseling center in the DAs office in Middlesex county in the 70s, I think he may have done more than you on this.

The BG and other news reports highlighted abortion - which was not the main issue of this speech. Your anger and language is rather misplaced.

[bling bling]

174. Whoaaa there.

Who's side are you on that you're going to come to a Democratic message board and slam a Democrat who is working to protect my rights? We need this conversation. And I mean "need" it.

The red states literally have anti-abortion legislation signed and ready to implement as soon as the right wing gets the rest of their ducks in a row. The situation is ominous if we don't figure out how to negotiate something to save women's rights to choose. That's what Kerry is doing, and thank goodness.

The Dems who are attempting to change the dialog in an effort to actually get the other side to LISTEN* are doing the right thing by their base. Sadly many in the Dem base are so sensitive and defensive they can't see the forest through the trees. Or maybe they just don't understand the game or the big picture, which is absolutely necessary to understanding politics.

But really, if you want to verbally assault a guy on our own team and disagree with what he's saying, the VERY VERY LEAST you can do is read what the heck he said. Or is that too much to ask? You're here, so I assume you're interested in politics. I don't think it's too out of line to expect those here who spout off accusations to at least do their research and speak the truth about their accusations or stay out of the conversation.

Broadcasting baseless and untrue attacks of our own on a Dem board serve only to hurt us all, and I for one don't appreciate it because my rights are literally at stake here.

[rodeodance]

143. here are excerpts of his speech (with a link);

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4212

......

A third area where we can find common ground is on one of the most emotional cultural issues of all: abortion. Obviously the issue of abortion has been enormously divisive, but there is also no denying there is common ground. There are 1.3 million abortions each year in America. Everyone can agree that that is too many and on a shared goal of reducing the need for abortion in the first place. And I believe our first step is to unite and accept the responsibility of making abortion rare by focusing on prevention and by supporting pregnant women and new parents.

Even as a supporter of Roe V. Wade, I am compelled to acknowledge that the language both sides use on this subject can be unfortunately misleading and unconstructive. Unfortunately, this debate has been framed in an overly partisan setting with excessive language on both sides – none of which does justice to the depth of moral conviction held by all. There’s been demonization rather than debate. Distrust rather than discussion. Everyone is worse off for it. Instead of making enemies, we need to make progress.

What would progress look like? Many people are surprised to learn that the most dramatic decline in America’s abortion rate took place under the last Democratic administration when poverty declined, more people graduated from college, employment grew at record rates, and the economy grew at record levels. Unfortunately, the economic policies of these last six years increase the pressure on women with unplanned pregnancies to seek abortions.

In addition to focusing on policies that will prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place, I believe we should also embrace and expand a proven set of economic measures to again make significant progress on reducing the number of abortions in America. This would mean raising the minimum wage, expanding educational opportunity, giving tax credits for domestic adoptions, providing universal health insurance, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and expanding federally funded child care...........

[Megahurtz]

184. The only way to "Reduce Abortions"

is to provide complete Family Planning Services in abundance to all of the public.
And that means any and all kinds of Birth Control.

Oh and one more thing, keep your nose out of other people's crotches.
Their body, their business!

[GeorgiaDem69]

212. That's really naive.

"keep your nose out of other people's crotches. Their body, their business!"

Its "their business" to a point. At some point it becomes society's business.

[CTyankee]

222. people giving birth to unwanted children

become "society's business" as you might have noticed. Children who are welcomed into the world responsibly by families prepared to care for, nurture and love them rarely become "society's business."

[VegasWolf]

195. Hell, I think we ought to ENCOURAGE abortions. If a young girl, say 15,

gets pregnant, what are the chances that baby will have a chance for a decent life. The girl is way to young to be an adequate mother, should she drop out of high school, if she is even in one, just to make money for her baby? Efforts by religious fanatics who try to talk this child into keeping her baby are absurd, sick people.

[bling bling]

199. Well, frankly it's not up to you, either. So stay out of her body.

If a 15 year old gets pregnant it's up to her what she does. It's not up to you or anybody else to demand we ENCOURAGE her to have an abortion because you assume the baby will have a shitty life.

It's a two way street, you know. CHOICE. That's what we're protecting here. Not trying to force or encourage people to have abortions.

Sheesh. Are you for real?

[VegasWolf]

204. And she shouldn't be DISCOURAGED by religious fanatics. A non religious

picture should be presented to her about what the future is most likely to hold in store for her.

[GeorgiaDem69]

219. You either

(1) don't have kids or (2) are just an idiot. Maybe a pregnant 15 year old (who already made a mistake in getting pregnant) needs someone to protect her from herself. A pregnant 25 year old can make the decision on her own, a pregnant 15 year old is a child who needs help. That help MIGHT (hell, PROBABLY) mean an abortion but it might not.

Is there ANY point at which you'd let an adult interfere in a child's decision to have an abortion? How about 13, 12? Are those girls capable of making the right "choice?"

[bling bling]

226. I have no idea what you're babbling about.

This is a political discussion board, whereby we're discussing the democratic party positions. I'm not talking about what you or I would/should do as a parent.

If you want to be a member of a political party that encourages abortions, then start your own party.

The Democratic Party platform does not include *encouraging* people to have abortions. It concerns itself with keeping abortion legal so that women may choose abortion as a safe and legal option.

If you want the party to start butting in and encouraging abortions based on your personal belief system, then write your congressmen and women. But let me warn you, that's about the fastest way I can think of to bolster the other side and nail the coffin shut on abortion rights.

[VegasWolf]

231. Why, do you think the extreme religious nutcases have enough power to

stop all abortions without the sane people in the country rising up against them? You are nutty.

[bling bling]

233. There's something really really funny

about YOU calling ME nutty.

I'm not going to engage in an argument with you over the fact that a womens right to choose is in jeopardy. If you think I'm nuts, well, I'll manage to find a way to go on.

But I do wish you wouldn't say eye-poppingly batshit crazy political-suicidal things like "Hell, we should ENCOURAGE abortions" because you're providing dangerous ammo to the enemy, whether you care about that or not.

[citizen snips]

198. its official

he is going run for president again.

[kath]

200. NOWHERE in the speech does he mention "contraception", "family planning"

or "birth control", DAMMIT!! And of course, readily available contraception along with COMPREHENSIVE sex education (get rid of the "abstinence only" bullshit already) is the ONLY thing that will make a significant dent in the number of abortions. Yeah, the other things will cause a small decline but CONTRACEPTION and KNOWLEDGE are absolutely of primary importance.

Oh, but wait, the fundies don't like birth control (and in fact would like to undo Griswold v. Connecticut) and John and Hillary need to kiss up to the fundies, sooooo....


(this has pissed me off for decades - it's so patently obvious that education and readily available contraception would significantly decrease the need for abortions (it works in Europe, especially re: teen pregnancies) but that point is rarely, if ever, made in the abortion wars between political types in this country.
ARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!)

{on edit - I echoed megahurz's post from above - didn't read all the way to the bottom of the thread after searching Kerry's speech for mention of contraception...)

[GetTheRightVote]

206. It has been proved in studies over the years, support programs do

help to lower the rate of abortions. It is to bad that pro-lifers do not get it and start creating ways to help women instead of just yelling at them. The old saying, get more with honey really seems to fit the bill here, but after speaking with pro-lifers (who can be very scary) I see little chance of a dialoge myself and it is all really very sad.

:kick:

[VegasWolf]

207. Well, pro-lifers have no reason other than their illogical religious

convictions, so there is no real logical basis that one CAN debate them on.

[goodboy]

215. Didn't Clinton reduce abortions by nearly half during his 8 years?

Or am I just crazy?

[karynnj]

224. yes he did - as Kerry pointed out in the speech

[sendero]

221. Abortions should be ..

... safe legal and rare. I think I agree with Mr. Kerry on this issue.

[VegasWolf]

232. Abortions should be easily available to people who want or need them. nt