Kerry - A Study in Moral Relativism

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

An excerpt from the The Second Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate

GIBSON: Going to go to the final two questions now, and the first one will be for Senator Kerry. And this comes from Sarah Degenhart.

DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today. But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that. But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society. But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment. Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise. That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning. You'll help prevent AIDS. You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies. You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.

GIBSON: Mr. President, minute and a half.

BUSH: I'm trying to decipher that.

My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion. This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America. I signed the partial-birth -- the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban. I think there ought to be parental notification laws. He's against them. I signed a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. In other words, if you're a mom and you're pregnant and you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two cases, not just one. My opponent was against that. These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America. I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life. I also think we ought to continue to have good adoption law as an alternative to abortion. And we need to promote maternity group homes, which my administration has done. Culture of life is really important for a country to have if it's going to be a hospitable society. Thank you.

GIBSON: Senator, do you want to follow up? Thirty seconds.

KERRY: Well, again, the president just said, categorically, my opponent is against this, my opponent is against that. You know, it's just not that simple. No, I'm not. I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother. Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I'm not going to require a 16-or 17-year-old kid who's been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her father. So you got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn't have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help, I voted against it. It's never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.

GIBSON: And 30 seconds, Mr. President.

BUSH: Well, it's pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no? And he was given a chance to vote, and he voted no. And that's just the way it is. That's a vote. It came right up. It's clear for everybody to see. And as I said: You can run but you can't hide the reality.

Hmmm... Kerry had a world stage -a chance to state Truth regarding abortion -Catholic Teaching -- To requote Kerry: "But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society."

My question is WHEN MR KERRY? -- Even if he will not walk the Catholic walk -WHEN will he talk the Catholic talk? He had an opportunity right then and there... His 'Religion' is maybe something he is ashamed of?

Kerry is lost... I will give him the benefit of the doubt though and pray he comes to understand Truth... I give him good wishes; however, in good conscience I could NEVER give him my vote...

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 09, 2004

Answers

It's truly amazing how a politician can take a particular side on an issue and claim that he is doing so "because I have to represent all the people in the nation". As though taking either side on any controversial issue doesn't automatically set them AGAINST a substantial percentage of the people in the nation? Of course, what they really mean is "I have to represent whichever people of the nation I think represent the majority, so I can get elected".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2004.

Mr, Kerry is surely on his way to hell, if he prefers a few years of glory to an eternity of glory.

"What will a man give in exchange for his soul"

-- Meyer (Tradsky@aol.com), October 10, 2004.


Yeah, because Bush is such a wonderful person. Stop pretending to have a peek at St. Peter's guest list. Judge not, lest ye be judged...

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), October 10, 2004.

Bush is no bargain either, but Kerry is working for the bad guys.

Ever been on a jury comrade.

-- Breeze (Blowhard@windy city.com), October 11, 2004.


Judge not? Anti-Bush your very on-line name is a judgment on your part!

What Our Lord meant was we can't judge the state of a man's soul - but we can and MUST JUDGE what is right or wrong. Liberals like you routinely confuse this: you go personal instead of go to the root of the issue.

We're talking about the rightness or wrongness of moral actions - those public things we can all see, and thus can all judge. We may never know to what degree a murderer is personally culpable, but we can know without a shred of doubt whether or not he or she is a murderer!

Instead of facing the fact that Kerry is in favor of the act of abortion and has done NOTHING in 20 years to promote alternatives to Abortion, or limit abortions as is constitionally possible (nothing in Roe v Wade mandates the Federal government to promote contraception or abortion in foreign countries via Planned Parenthood), you divert us to look at whether or not Bush is a nice guy!

Stick to the topic. Face the facts, look and judge whether or not the position he has taken is a position that a Catholic with an operative Catholic conscience can indeed take.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 11, 2004.



As a Roman Catholic, You MUST vote for a 100% Pro-Life Candidate if such a candidate is running ~~~ No matter what you think of the rest of his policies ~~~ ~~ No matter whether or not you think he can win ~~ under penalty of SIN!

When you stand before Him at your Personal Judgment, God will not be interested in whether you voted for the candidate who won or who cut your taxes...

He will demand to know WHY you voted for a candidate who felt it was acceptable to murder unborn children.

That is why Kerry is surely out and Bush with his 2 percent is also out. That is why Michael Petroutka is our only choice. He is the Constitution Party candidate

-- Meyer (Tradsky @aol.com), October 11, 2004.


As a Catholic you should vote in such a way as to ensure that the best possible candidate is elected. When there are only two viable candidates, you should vote for the best of the two - or if you prefer, the lesser of two evils. To vote for someone who has no chance of winning is to withdraw from the electoral process. Doing so may give you some feeling of self-satisfaction, but in practical terms it is the same as not voting at all; and if the worst possible candidate wins, he was elected by those who did not vote against him in any real sense.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 11, 2004.

That is why Kerry is surely out and Bush with his 2 percent is also out. That is why Michael Petroutka is our only choice. He is the Constitution Party candidate

I sympathize with you. Bush is not the perfect candidate. But right now, a vote for Petrouka is a vote for Kerry. I'm sorry, there's no other way to put it. The Kerry camp and pro-aborts would be very pleased to hear that you are voting for Petrouka. Just as the Bushies are pleased when libs vote for Nader.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 11, 2004.


if Kerry meet God and I am sure he will be asked "what about the constituitional rights of the innocence - should they who are even defenceless be protected..?"

Shame on Kerry.. so much rubbish about the constituitional rights of people of United States.

-- Anthony Yong (anthony.yong@gtech.com), October 11, 2004.


Kerry's point was that it IS unconstitutional for the federal government to ban abortion. The tenth ammendment states that any powers not specificaly delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. Abortion needs to be an issue for the states. If the federal government wants to cut funding for abortion and abortion-related activities, I'm on board. I might even support a consitutional ammendment. But Kerry is right that the consitution does not give the federal government the authority to ban abortion.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), October 17, 2004.


The federal government bans the killing of older people. Where is that power "specificaly delegated to the federal government"? If the government possesses the authority to ban the murder of individuals of certain ages, how could that power not apply equally to other individuals who differ only in age? Curious that no-one noticed the government's lack of authority to ban the killing of people of any specific age before 1970.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 17, 2004.

Anti-Bush, you can't be that gullible. So all of a sudden Kerry is a champion of state's rights? Give me a break. In the debates, Kerry actually made these two contradictory statements.

Kerry said that as a practicing Catholic, he personally opposes abortion, but as a political figure, "I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever."

Then he also said, incredibly: "My faith affects everything that I do, in truth... And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people. That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith."

So he legislates his "faith" for the poor and the environment yet won't do the same for the unborn, even though he has said he believes life begins at conception. Is this guy a beauty or what?

As far as the constitution goes, the main issue is on the definition of a person. If a fetus is defined as a person, then abortion would be a violation of that person's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Kerry has said he believes life begins at conception. It's hard to argue, knowing all we know, not only theologically, but medically, that a fetus is not a person. I believe that the Supreme Courts has defined corporations as persons but not fetuses. Right now, abortion is allowed due to a made up "right of privacy" of a woman to have an abortion.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 17, 2004.


italicsoff

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 17, 2004.

Where did you get the idea that the fetus is not a person? This may be true legally, but so what? Dark-skinned people were once considered non-persons legally. The Church teaches that "... the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude". And, "Being in the image of God, the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone." (CCC 357) You can argue all day about philosophical definitions of "person", but the unborn child is clearly a "human individual".

Incidentally, the legal definition is not carved in stone either. If a pregnant woman is murdered, her killer can be charged with double homicide. The law allows for the personhood of the unborn when it is convenient.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 18, 2004.


Where did you get the idea that the fetus is not a person?

Where did you get the idea that I thought that? I think you misread my post. I think its ludicrous that the Supreme Court won't define a fetus as a person, yet defines corporations as persons.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 18, 2004.



Brian,

My apologies if I misread what you said. It did surprise me, given the superb quality of your usual posts. What threw me was the statement "It's hard to argue, knowing all we know, not only theologically, but medically, that a fetus is not a person." Was that a quote from Kerry? I took it as an expression of your own position. Sorry. Please clarify.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 18, 2004.


Paul,

Wow, I'm kind of stunned (in a good way) reading your kind words. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, it would seem that such "quality" did not apply to that sentence you referenced. That was indeed an expression of my own position. I wonder if I strike the unnecessary words it will then make more sense? "It's hard to argue, knowing all we know, not only theologically, but medically, that a fetus is not a person." IOW, a fetus is a person. It's hard to argue otherwise.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 18, 2004.


O boy, after re-reading that sentence, I now realize how one could interpret the opposite of what I was trying to say. It appears that by reading so much political/debate commentary I am unwittingly absorbing some Kerry-like linguistic techniques.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 18, 2004.

"I am unwittingly absorbing some Kerry-like linguistic techniques."

-yes -be careful...

:)

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 18, 2004.


I think its ludicrous that the Supreme Court won't define a fetus as a person, yet defines corporations as persons.

But it's not without precedent, after all, the Supreme Court decided Dredd Scott wasn't a person either. Pretty soon it'll decide that the old and unproductive aren't people (or are conditional people) too.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 18, 2004.


What is your opinion of parental notification, regardless of the morality issue of consentual abortion (which we all know is murder), though? (Sorry to go off topic) Is it a violation of a "person's" privacy to have to notify her parents?

-- D. Greer (dlg2616@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.

Children do not have a right to "privacy" where their parents are concerned. It is the business and the right of a parent to know what is going on with their child, medically, socially, emotionally, educationally. Legally permitting a child to obtain potentially life-threatening surgery without the knowledge or consent of her parents is a gross violation of parental rights and parental responsibility to safeguard the welfare of their children. But don't worry, your child still has to obtain parental permission to have her ears pierced.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 24, 2004.

I might add that in a general sense the Fourth Commandment Honor your father and your mother although expressly addressed to children in their relationship to their father and mother includes and presupposes the duties of parents - one duty of which would be responsibilty for nurturing and protecting both the physical and spiritual welfare of their children.

At best, a secular state may attempt to cater to physical welfare; however, is lacking regarding matters of spiritual welfare. Regardless, and some might argue, even in all but extreme circumstances, the state does not have the 'right' to intercede in or severe the parent child relationship -especially in matters of such grave import both physically and spiritually.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 24, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ