The Conscience of a Liberal
Published July 08, 2004
So, Eileen, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, lest you incur more wrath and spoil the Party.
It is that kind of talk that makes me despair that the electoral process can ever be a useful means to debate divisive issues in America. Abortion remains so contentious, in part, because each side is so intent on holding its ground that neither acknowledges how difficult this issue is for many Americans.In part true, but only in part. The largest reason this debate remains divisive is that the key decisions were not made by the elected representatives of the people (many of whom were wrestling with this issue in 1973). Rather, the most important decision was imposed by a court judgment and maintained by what can only be called fanatics. They view every question through the abortion prism. The abortion-rights activists who pursued the original 1973 decision have fought tooth-and-nail for 30 years against any federal legislation that restricts the practice of abortion in any way, and against the advancement of any judge who might threaten that 1973 ruling. No holds barred and no quarter given. Ask Clarence Thomas. Or see how much helpful support a rape victim received from NOW when she made charges against a prominent Democrat who supported abortion rights.
And John Kerry is the poster child of these fanatics. A catholic US Senator voting for unrestricted abortion - the very model of a "courageous" (your word) abortion-rights Catholic.
It is not surprising that Kerry leaves his conscience in the Senate cloakroom, Eileen. Such lack of integrity (there I go again!) is unseemly in a senator, but a tragedy for a nation when practiced by a president who possesses no core values that actually impact his behavior as a legislator or a leader. Again I refer to the superb example set by the 42nd president.
I, for one, would like to know more about how difficult an issue it is for John F. Kerry and his curious conscience.So would I. You are welcome to ask as far as I am concerned, Eileen. But in the weeks to come if the mainstream press by some remote chance gives The Presumptive Nominee a pass on this question, would you excuse me for suspecting their impartiality?
- The Conscience of a Liberal
- Published: July 08, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Harry Forbes
- Harry Forbes's BC Writer page
- Harry Forbes's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Why can't a person believe that "life" begins at conception but not the "right to life"? Indeed, given this country's policy on capitol punishment, it would seem that most of us believe the "right to life" is always conditional.
Harry Forbes: Kerry represents what is essentially a 1-party state. This condition allows elected officials to engage in all kinds of misbehavior when they know they may vote without fear of reprisal at the next election. The 2-party system is a vast improvement over this. We should try it some time.
Interesting proposal. So then, which branch of the Federal government should we give back to the Democrats?
Very interesting and well-written post Harry, and while I believe that it is possible for people to be against abortion on a moral/religious basis privately, but believe that the government should be strongly constrained in what it can dictate regarding a woman's use of her own body, you make a lot of good points.
Thanks and welcome!
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/17226)
I believe this is regarded as a skill by some and called "compartmentalization".
The extreme end of "compartmentalization" is Schizophrenia. For Kerry to say in no uncertain terms that he believes life begins at conception, but then to vote to, by his own conscience, allow abortion in general and the horific act of Partial Birth Abortion specifically to continue is not "nuance." Rather, it's something very unhealthy and somewhat scary.
This is not a good trait for a guy who wants to be President.
David