Wonder which direction the police will fire the tear gas when the two sides clash.

Posted by: Ronin at April 23, 2004 09:51 AM

I don’t really see why anti-abortionists are against Bush. He hasn’t done and can do nothing pro or anti abortion rights. It’s in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Ricky Vandal at April 23, 2004 10:28 AM

I couldn’t find any mention of abortion issues on the Bush re-election site. The search for “abortion” turns up zilch.

A search on Kerry’s site yields 14 results.

ok,
ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 23, 2004 10:46 AM

Ricky, Bush can however put replacement supreme court figures in power who would vote to overturn Roe V. Wade and has made moves to do exactly that. Now currently the vote is locked with just enough votes to keep RvW from overturning however at least 2 of the supreme court justices (the lefties if you will) have been rumored to be seeking retirement soon, when they leave ‘whichever’ president is in charge can replace them as he see’s fit. Throw in a couple antiabortion judges and boom RvW is gone and womens clinics are out of buisness (and there would be protesting in the street). As long those same judges stayed in power another RvW type law would not be allowed to be enacted.

If Bush really wants to lock the election down he could probably do so easily by sending out rumors to the oposition camps that if elected he wouldnt make a move on electing die hard judges and would stop pushing hard on the anti gay marriage act. The dems wouldnt vote against him this election but they dislike kerry enough that enough might not bother to vote or vote thier concious and go nader. Liberals hate bush with a passion, but alot of them are secretly not too fond of kerry who they find too conservative.

Personally im sitting this one out unless one of the candidates starts making some bold statements that i like, which i doubt will happen. The two people i would have voted for have already dropped out and bush isnt likely to drop cheney for Powell as a running mate.

Posted by: Ronin at April 23, 2004 11:03 AM

Ronin I make no bones about where I stand on the abortion issue. I do not condone nor approve of the procedure, nor do I approve of any non-legal means to thwart the activities of the abortionists. They will pay for their deeds.

HOWEVER - The abortion rights of women were gained through the judicial process, and they can be rescinded in the same manner. If our current President decides that he must nominate judges who will carry their religious convictions or moral and ethical responsibility into the courtroom as a guiding light, that is his choice. I would approve of such an act by him.

We as a society have silenced the voices and choices of over 40,000,000 souls with callous disregard as a matter of ‘convenience’. Do we hate children so much that we must let it continue? I hope and pray that we do not.

There. I’m through now.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 23, 2004 12:20 PM

What’s most interesting about this issue is the opportunity for us to view the press’s bias. Let’s see how much coverage either side gets.

And the abortion issue is another one of those liberal hysteria triggers. Mindless followers are called upon to march and so they do. the amount of analysis about this topic posted here today exceeds by several orders of magnatude the amount of thought the pro abortion marchers have invested in this topic.

Posted by: skip at April 23, 2004 12:57 PM

Vatican Warns Kerry Not to Take Communion Apr.23

A top Vatican official close to the Pope, Cardinal Francis Arinze, emphasized today that priests must not give communion to pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic.

Arinze, a Nigerian who has been mentioned as a possible successor to Pope John Paul II, did not comment specifically on whether presidential candidate John Kerry should be excommunicated.

But the inference was clear - and Reuters news wire as well as others said the Cardinal’s remarks were a clear shot across Kerry’s bow.

The cardinal left no doubt about Kerry by saying that an “unambiguously pro-abortion” politician “is not fit” to receive communion.

“If they should not receive, then they should not be given,” he noted.

The cardinal’s directive “could influence the U.S. presidential race,” Reuters observed.

Already several leading Catholic laity and clergy have told Kerry that he is excommunicated from the Church because of his abortion stance.

Kerry, meanwhile, planned to campaign with pro-choice groups today and denounce President Bush’s greatest success in human rights: a ban on gruesome partial-birth abortions.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 23, 2004 01:08 PM

Killing children who can survive outside the womb on their own is just plain wrong and evil.

It could be that many democrats today are survivors of that failed procedure, had their brains sucked out but survived anyways.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 23, 2004 01:11 PM

Killing children who can survive outside the womb is also just plain stupid. The Western societies can not replace themselves and will eventually be overrun by other, more fecund, communities. This is happening in Europe as I write. Muslim immigration and regeneration within Europe could see these populations having majorities in the not too distant future. If they retain their beliefs then look forward to the New Dark Ages everyone.

Posted by: AngloAmerican at April 23, 2004 03:45 PM

I’m a proud anti-abortionist and I feel that abortion gives the women the right to murder. There is no such right for men to murder unborn children.

We should either have it both ways or not at all. And why on earth does our Declaration of Independance say that our Creator gave us the right to life, if our government is taking that away?

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at April 23, 2004 04:11 PM

Trick is not to increase our birthrate(that road leads to bad things). But to decrease thiers.

Posted by: Ronin at April 23, 2004 04:11 PM

I have no idea when Senator Kerry claimed he was an Agnostic, but for several reasons I find fault with his ‘religious’ beliefs: (1) He ‘acquired’ an annulment for an 18 year old marriage that resulted in 2 children. (2) He is ‘Pro-choice’, which is a cop-out and expressly forbidden by the Church.
(3) His Christian ‘Charity’ is exhibited only in election years. (4) He is a Moral Relativist. If one takes a stance on any subject which is in contradiction to Teachings or Dogmatic Pronouncements of the Church (“Thou shalt not kill”), then one excommunicates oneself.

If he does not Practice his Faith, he is Outside the Faith by his own choice. Jesus Christ did not teach us to follow his commandments only when they were convenient.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 23, 2004 04:21 PM

I take a Mormon’s stance on Abortion:

Nay to abortions of convenience. Abortion should ONLY be used in cases where the physical situation could cause the death of one or the other (child and mother) or both. That’s the ONLY case I (and many mormons) see abortion fit. (KEY WORD HERE: ONLY, PERIOD!)

In ANY other case, we don’t allow it.

To combat births out of wedlock or births where the unfortunate has occurred, we have (contrary to what pro-choice people would have it) an adoption system in the church where %100 percent of the kids are put in good homes, with married parents who are seeking adoption.

Posted by: Charles Hammond Jr. at April 23, 2004 05:14 PM

Although I oppose abortion on moral grounds as an undeniable destruction of human life, as a Libertarian I believe that the domain of the state stops at our epiderma. Making social war against abortion would have the same abysmal results as the War On Drugs™, because the truth is, in the final analysis, it doesn’t matter what a bunch of (mostly) geriatric white men scribble on pieces of paper, women have, have always had and always will have the power to have an abortion, since God/Yahweh/Allah/Gaeia/Krsna and/or Mother Nature entrusted women and women alone to serve as the Vehicle of Life.

That being said, I personally believe that if the SCOTUS scuttled Roe v. Wade tomorrow, no state, with the possible exception of Utah, would ban abortion. And if Utah DID enact an outright ban, it would be shockingly controversial. The number of individuals in this country whom believe that women should be given deference in matters that concern the insides of their bodies is simply too large and too credible to overwhelm.

Still, it’s time for the advocates of choice to realize that Roe v. Wade, far from being a touchstone of women’s rights, is actually bad law as it depends on the mutable, unstable concept of “viability.” They should instead shift their energies from the protection of bad common law to an effort that amends the Constitution to create an actual right of privacy containing specific inviolable boundaries protecting us from the state.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson at April 23, 2004 08:01 PM

jackson,

Nebraska sure would. Louisiana in a second. Ditto, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, Mississip, So. Carolina, Texas, Indiana, Idaho. Pennsylvania would be close. Alaska. Kansas.

I bet that So. Dakota, Virginia, Montana and Wyoming could. Where would that put Tom Daschle, if he was actually voting on a live option? The Republicans in pro-choice states are largely pro-choice (Linc Chafee) but there are many pro-choice dems in strongly pro-life states. This would be VERY inconvenient for them.

I’d suggest you look at sites that track the votes of senators and congressistas. You’ll find a lot that are solid pro-life. That should change your mind about the probable outcomes.

Obviously pro-chocie: NY, Mass, Cali, the Jerz, Minn, Conn, Rhode Island, Washington, Oregon, Wisconisn, Michigan, Minnesota.

Off the top of their head, any views about other states? How about Kentucky and Tennessee? What about Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Arizona?

Posted by: trashcanjack at April 23, 2004 10:37 PM

Will someone please tell me how G.W. Bush can replace Supreme Court Justices? The democrats will not allow him to hardly replace or appoint new Justices to any court.

The abortion issue is all the Demoncrats have to run on. The abortion issue is also not only in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is in the hands of the women in America.

Several years ago, I told all my Republican friends, “Let the damn abortion issue go.” Many listened to me at that time. Morality can’t be legalized. Its that simple. Abortion should be a non issue.

But, alas, there are those that like to use abortion as a political issue. Women will never face threats against the right to have an abortin as they once did.

I’m personally against abortin unless the life of the mother is threatned. With that said, I realize that Roe v Wade is the law of the land. It shall remain the law of the land.

The women of America shall make that reality glare greater than any other issue which they fight for. There would be civil war all across America if the Supreme Court was arrogrant enough to strike down Roe v Wade.

Abortion is the law of the land and it is a non political issue. Except to those who wish to distract from other very important issues. I’m a Republican. Nonetheless, I, do not have any legal right to make abortion a personal political issue. Nor does any Democrat.

Roe v Wade is the law. And only education will ever have an impact on any law. The Justices of an all consertative Supreme Court would be foolish to reverse a law that women have for so long fought for.

Its that very simple. There is nothing to debate about.

Posted by: Eugene at April 24, 2004 07:00 PM

Morality can’t be legalized. Its that simple.
Posted by: Eugene at April 24, 2004 07:00 PM

Eugene,

This feeble argument is forever being invoked in the abortion debate.

Of course morality can be legislated. Murder as a matter of law is interdict. So is stealing. So is lying under oath.

All of these are predicated on moral precepts not moonbeams.

What do you suggest immoral laws (e.g., apartheid) be replaced by? Value-neutral laws?

Morality can be legislated.

DGB

DGB

Posted by: Damian Bennett at April 27, 2004 10:50 PM