The Democratic Party's position is clear: we are for the woman's right to choose. We are willing to discuss restrictions and limitations, as well as educational measures that will make the horrible procedure more safe yet rare.
John Kerry's position is exactly my position. We are against abortion personally as it is an article of our religion or faith. Our faith holds that life begins at conception, and thus we are against abortion as it ends life.
However, since that belief is a religious one, we cannot impose that belief on others in society who do not share it. Many who are not of the Catholic faith do not believe that life begins at conception. Who are we to impose our religious beliefs on them by writing our beliefs into law? Would that not be a violation of the separation of church and state?
Therefore, if abortion is to exist under the laws of the United States, then the government should everything in its power to restrict the procedure at or near viability, and before then, do everything to make sure that the procedure is safe yet rare.
Thus, John Kerry and I are pro-life, yet pro-choice.
Some here just believe religion does not come into the equation at all. It is a woman's body, and thus it is her choice to do with her body as she sees fit. Others see it as a privacy issue, in that the government has no right to involve itself in decisions of such a personal nature.
The Republicans in power are pro-life, or as here say, anti-choice.
Now yes, there are some Republicans who are either pro-choice or neutral on this issue, but they are overwhelmingly outnumbered and can never win the presidential nomination of the party now dominated by Christian fundamentalists.
Thus, the Republican Party now seeks the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, the affect of which will return the legality of abortion to the states, who then may choose to ban the procedure outright with no exceptions.
In the meantime, the Republicans are busy muddling the waters with half measures that are designed to chip away at the foundation of the decision while at the same time establish a new foundation for the validity of their anti-abortion argument.
The Partial Birth Abortion Act, where a rare procedure only used in dire emergencies is exploited and banned.
The Child Custody Restoration Act, which would prohibit the transportation of a minor pregnant teenager across state lines to get an abortion when such an abortion would require parental consent in her home state.
The Laci/Conor Petersen Law, which establishes that the murder of a pregnant woman should involved two murder charges rather than one.
So where do you stand? What should we do? Did we lose because of this issue?
Comments are closed on this story.