Politics Question 2 – Kerry's abortion views

John Kerry said he believes life begins at conception, but he’s unwilling to support legislation that would stop abortion. So, taking life is only illegal after birth. Doesn’t this seem like an obvious contradiction?

This entry was posted in Old Blog and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Politics Question 2 – Kerry's abortion views

  1. Josh Creason says:

    It seems like Kerry has a catagory of “good” abortions (incest, rape…) that he is trying to protect. My guess is that he doesn’t want to support a bill banning abortion because he doesn’t want to lose it as an option for such cases.

  2. Dwight says:

    I also want to know how John Kerry and John Edwards can defend partial-birth abortion. To support partial birth abortion you have to be either a) unaware of what the procedure actually is, or b) support infanticide. The life of the mother, rape and incest argument is a red herring and do not apply to this issue because to perform the partial birth prodedure a baby (or fetus if you insist) has to be removed far enough from the birth canal to have the head exposed so the doctor can shove a tube into the back of the head and suck the brains out. That’s why it is called a partial birth. If the mother is in good enough health to have the baby pulled out with just the torso and legs remaining, she is in good enough health to have them taken the rest of the way out.

  3. Josh Creason says:

    Add to that the fact that by the time they are doing partial birth abortions, the baby is probably viable with intensive medical care. For one mother, it’s a premature baby that will live, but the same baby to another woman is a fetus to be aborted.

  4. Jon Wright says:

    I know this looks long, but you NEED to read all of this.

    How can you deny an abortion to a twelve-year-old girl who is the victim of incest?” complains an indignant supporter of abortion. “And how can you call yourself a loving Christian if you would force a victim of violent rape to give birth to a rapist’s child?” Unfortunately, most pro-lifers have difficulty answering these challenges because the issue of sexual assault pregnancies is so widely misunderstood. Typically, both sides of the debate accept the presumption that women with sexual assault pregnancies would want an abortion and that the abortion would in some way help them to recover from the assault. But in fact, the welfare of the mother and child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases. Both the mother and child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence.

    It is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion. This evidence alone should cause us to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims. Abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back time to make a woman “un-pregnant.” Research shows that after any abortion, it is common for women to experience guilt, depression, feelings of being “dirty,” resentment of men, and lowered self-esteem. What is most significant is that these feelings are identical to what women typically feel after rape. Abortion, then, only adds to and accentuates the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault. Rather than easing the psychological burdens of the sexual assault victim, abortion adds to them.

    The case against abortion of incest pregnancies is even stronger. Studies show that incest victims rarely ever voluntarily agree to an abortion. Instead of viewing the pregnancy as unwanted, the incest victim is more likely to see the pregnancy as a way out of the incestuous relationship because the birth of her child will expose the sexual activity. She is also likely to see in her pregnancy the hope of bearing a child with whom she can establish a true loving relationship, one far different than the exploitive relationship in which she has been trapped. Abortion providers almost always neglect to interview minors presented for abortion for signs of coercion or incest, are actually contributing to the young girl’s victimization. They are not only robbing the victim of her child, they are concealing a crime, abetting a perpetrator, and handing the victim back to her abuser so that the exploitation can continue.

    Finally, we must recognize that the children conceived through sexual assault also have a voice which deserves to be heard. Julie Makimaa, conceived by an act of rape, works diligently against the perception that abortion is acceptable or even necessary in cases of sexual assault. While sympathetic to the suffering her mother endured at the hands of her attacker, Julie is also rightfully proud of her mother’s courage and generosity. Regarding her own view of her origin, Julie proclaims: “It doesn’t matter how I began. What matters is who I will become.”

    http://www.afterabortion.org/rape.html

  5. Dwight says:

    Thanks Jon: good comments and backed up by research.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *