There is a web site with statemnets from some of the men who served with Kerry. Of the 24 who actually served with him only two support him. Two are dead. The rest have nothing nice to say about him.
Most veterans do not think much of his war record, and less of his actions when he returned and called his former comrades woman killers, baby killers, etc.
But, lets forget that. His record as a senator is what you should look at
He states a few weeks ago that life begins a conception. Than he votes FOR partial birth abortion. This is when a baby is 3/4 out of the mother and it's brains are suck out. The AMA states there is NO MEDICAL REASON for this procedure. But Kerry has to do the bidding of the pro abortion crowd.
Kerry is on record saying that Sadam has weapons of mass destruction and cannot be permitted to give them to terrorist. He said this in 2003. He served on the intel committee. Now he says Bush lied.
Clinton ignored the terrorist threat. That's why his natiuonal security adviser was stuffing classified documents down his pants and later destroying them. These documents proved that he gave poor advice to Clinton when we had a number of chances to get Bin Laden. Berger was now advising Kerry. God Help us.
Berger is the guy who toasted the leader of N. Korea on that great deal we made giving him a Nuclear reactor. Which he used to build a bomb! And don't forget the Red Chinese running in and out of the Clinton White House with there check books. They now have more acurate nuclear war heads. Clinton had the State Dept take over the export licensing from DOD so his friend at Lorell Corp could sell guidance technology to Red China!

The AMA states their is no medical reason for a D&X? That statement is false. Prove it. Those "letters from the AMA to Sen. Richard Santorum" your slurping up are Internet fakes. Here's the AMA website, get the truth:

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2003/04/07/prsc0407.htm

I am proud of Kerry's record of keeping pro-life fascists from imposing there laws on women. You don't want to have an abortion? Good, don't have one. Otherwise, stay out of my family's business - its between us and the doctor, and even more so between a women and her doctor, not some bunch of religous fanatics who wants to run other people's lives.

Given the same information Bush had, if Kerry had been President we would have never went to war in Iraq, we would be kicking ass in Afganistan. Granting the president authority to make war was based on the Senate's judgement that he would do so carefully. Instead, he went headlong into

So you're telling me those 12 or so guys who walked out there are actually "2" people?

There are legitimate medical uses to the so called partial-birth abortion (stillborn) procedure. I am not a medical expert, but I have heard many testify that this procedure can be used sometimes when the mother's life is in trouble. I'd hate to have a woman die because of some Washington idealogue's beliefs.

careful man he might build a bomb

Your actually a funny guy. We could use you around here.

I am still not seeing why it is right to murder kids in the first place?????????? Wht dont you guys clue me in on the whole "need" for abortion and why anyone should be allowed to decide if they want to murder their kid. Another thing why all the insults? Just because I believe that abortion is wrong does not imply that I am going to "build a bomb" to kill people that do not agree with me. Just my spare change.
Hudson

Nyah-nyah, you touched the third rail!

Now you're gonna get the personal invective treatment, forget that you asked a legitimate question.

You're probably a neocon, too!

I generally am opposed to abortion but am more opposed to government interference in people's lives. So I view it as an issue of liberty being more important than infanticide.

If your'e a minor, you have less rights than an adult. If you're a teaspoon of sperm, you got nothing for rights. If you're an unembedded zygote (a one-celled human being with a full chromosome compliment) nature may prevent implantation into the uterus or later, spontaneously abort the fetus. In any case, why allow benign abortion (or whatever it may be called) and not allow human selection of the gene pool?

OTOH, legal abortion cheapens life from an awsome responsibility to a question of convenience.

If a fetus is inconvenient and its okay to abort it, why not a fetus at 9 mos, 3 weeks? Or how about if you kid is defective at say, 6 months post-partum?

Anybody who thinks this is an easy question probably hasn't spent a lot of time thinking about the stuff at the cusps of life.

Because its a religous argument. You say I am "murdering my kid" because based on your religion, life begins at some point. My religous beliefs, or lack of them, say that life begins the day you take a breath. Thats part one. Part two is this, you don't have one life you are dealing with, you have two. A women has a right to make a decision in her life on whether she wants to spend the next 18 years of her life taking care of a kid, and a lot of times the decision involves taking care of a handicapped or retarded kid, or a child that belongs to a rapist or a one night stand. I am not going to force another human being to make that decision in just the way I want her to make it. I don't have the right, and nobody else does either.

I'm 50 years old. I grew up in the world where abortion was illegal. To force women to back to that world, of back alley abortions, of being forced to raise kids they didn't want, that whole world was inhumane and wrong. You may not like abortion. Good, don't have one. As far as other people go, thats a decision that is just not yours or your church or your political party to make for someone. In the term "mind your own business" thats the kind of business people are talking about.

The bomb joke the guy made was pretty out of line, but the pro-life movement brought that on themselves in a lot of ways by resorting to bombings and violence. Personally, I thnk the abortion debate is over in this country. People are tired of it, and the pro-lifers lost. I don't think it is going to be a big component of this election, and it hasn't even been mentioned much by either candidate or the press, and the demonstrations seem to have evaporated. Only the true believer pro-lifers push it now, otherwise people in general have pretty much made up there mind that it is here to stay, and most people are ok with it.

It is not entirely necessary to present the argument as abortion-on-demand versus the coathanger.

Nor is it necessarily religious, but even so that doesn't make an argument either more or less legitimate.

B

To me it is a simple legal question. The constitution reserves rights to only "natural born persons". It also guarantees, in the 4th Amendment, that we are to be "secure in our persons", or have a right to control our own bodies. There is also the 13th Amendment, that prohibits involuntary servitude, and forcing a women to raise a child against her will is certainly that.

Okay, so a fetus at 8 months, 3 weeks is okay to terminate?

B

The extremism on on the pro-life side. Calling doctors and women in trouble "murderers" makes the "coathanger" thing pale by comparision.

Bump

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

The case, among other things, provided the 'trimester" system to guide when the goverment may invade privacy and interfere with "choice."

In the first trimester, under Wade, American women have an absolute right to an abortion;

There is allowance for some government regulation in the second trimester of pregnancy, however states may not ban second trimester abortions;

In the third trimester, states may restrict or ban abortions in the last trimester as the fetus nears the point where it could live outside the womb. In this trimester a woman can obtain an abortion despite any legal ban only if doctors certify it is necessary to save her life or health.

Well, the argument to which I posed the question was this:

"To me it is a simple legal question. The constitution reserves rights to only "natural born persons". It also guarantees, in the 4th Amendment, that we are to be "secure in our persons", or have a right to control our own bodies. There is also the 13th Amendment, that prohibits involuntary servitude, and forcing a women to raise a child against her will is certainly that."

The asertion was taht its simple and so I asked a question designed to point-out that it isn't simple.

Indeed, even accepting the argument used by the Supremes, we find the reasoning behind that is becoming dated. It is now possible to maintain viable fetuses outside of the uterus in teh second trimester. If we (society) provided life support to Christopher Reeves, why not an innocent baby? Etc.

This is not a simple issue and with rapid scientific and medical advances, its going to get even more complicated.

Using the rusty coat hanger vs murder rhetoric effectively silences consideration by villifying one's opponent. Its a useful technique for winning arguments, but it does little to advance understanding of the problem.

B