[Previous entry: "Interview with the Bob"] [Next entry: "Defining the culture wars"]
07/06/2004: "Kerry and abortion: the search for wiggle room continues"
The last couple of days saw more twists and turns in the on-going saga of John Kerry, abortion absolutist, trying to reposition himself for the election. According to the Washington Post:
But even as he tried to avoid making news Sunday, Kerry broke new ground in an interview that ran in the Dubuque, Iowa, Telegraph Herald. A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."
The locution "I believe life does begin at conception" is either short-hand for something else or a fraud. There's no controversy over whether life begins at conception. The question is whether human life begins then. The latter is the teaching of the Catholic Church. If Kerry's statement is supposed to break new ground, I wonder when the senator will declare his full confidence in the heliocentric theory of the solar system.
Spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said that although Kerry has often said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," and that his religion shapes that view, she could not recall him ever publicly discussing when life begins.
I'm not sure on what basis we can believe that Sen. Kerry thinks that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." He has never, ever voted for any measure that would place any limit whatsoever on abortion, even to the point of opposing the partial birth ban, parental notification, etc. This is just a throwaway line for the sake of calming the yahoos.
"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued in the interview. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."
This is more of the same gibberish that's standard from pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Questions come unbidden:
1) Does this mean that Sen. Kerry does not consult his Catholic-formed conscience when deciding political questions that have moral implications? Or that his conscience hasn't been effected by his life as a Catholic?
2) Does Sen. Kerry separate out his Catholic convictions on issues such as poverty, racial equality, capital punishment, etc.?
3) Can Sen. Kerry, who "opposes abortion, personally," think of any reason to restrict abortion that doesn't involve parroting the Vatican line? Is there no rationale, based in secular reasoning, that might justify abortion restrictions?
4) Since "church-state separation" means Sen. Kerry can't "legislate his belief" on those of other faith traditions, how does he justify supporting embryonic stem cell research, when there are millions of evangelical and Catholic voters who oppose it? How can he ever support the use of American military force, when there are Quakers and other pacifist denominations unalterably opposed? How can he support same-sex marriage when there are dozens of denominations that have come out in opposition? How could he oppose polygamy, if American Muslims decided to lobby for it as a matter of "religious freedom"?
(Hat tip: Brian P.)
UPDATE: Christianity Today's Weblog raises a number of the same points about Kerry that I do. It also includes this quote from Boston Globe columnist Eileen McNamara that suggests that even some pro-abortion folks are beginning to wonder what's going on with the candidate:
[She explains that] mistakenly assumed that, on this very personal issue, Kerry's conscience was at odds with the teaching of his church....Now, I don't know what to think. I cannot respectfully disagree with him as I do with an abortion opponent whose conscience prompts her to work to unseat lawmakers like Kerry. I understand her. She is acting on principle, lobbying to change laws antithetical to her conscience. I don't understand him, voting consistently in opposition to what he now tells us is one of his core beliefs.
