It should be no secret if you've read any of the remarks on this blog that I regard John Kerry as one who utterly lacks the moral and ethical perspective necessary to lead this country (apart from his appalling positions on the issues of the day) but check the following display of his illogical (current, it may change tomorrow) position on abortion: WorldNetDaily: Kerry's abortion doubletalk
an excerpt:
When asked to explain the apparent contradiction of his recent statements with his well-known and public support of abortion, he gave a Kerry-classic answer, replete with nuance and doubletalk.He "clarified" his statements by distinguishing human life from personhood. His position is that the unborn child is not a person according to the law. Though human, the unborn child is not protectable human life. That means, Kerry adheres to and supports the decision made in Roe v. Wade. And for our non-French speaking audience, that means he undauntedly supports abortion.
This seriously flawed notion that someone can be human but not a person is not new. It was used most infamously by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 to justify slavery. In Dred Scott, the court didn't argue whether African Americans were human. The court argued that African Americans simply weren't persons under the law deserving rights and protection.
Not only is Kerry's restatement of his current position fatally logically flawed, it is simply an immoral view! Apart from whether he supports the right of a woman to murder her unborn child, he can't even make the connection between HUMAN LIFE and PERSONHOOD. What fool makes a distinction between these two concepts??? One of the men who wants to be your president, that's who, one who is hopelessly confused on at least one plain, clear and simple fundamental truth.
Posted by toddpedlar at August 11, 2004 09:52 PM | TrackBackWell, for one thing, this fool does. And I'm a pro-lifer who believes that all human life, which begins at conception, is personal life. Nevertheless, just because it happens to be the case that all humans are persons, this does not mean that the distinction between human life and personhood is invalid or "fatally logically flawed." If there were no distinction, then all persons would be human. So much then for God and the angels. I happen to think that accepting the distinction could go a long way towards decreasing the number of abortions. The important thing to most abortion advocates seems to be the right to privacy. Fine, let them have it. However, Roe v. Wade admits that persons are not subject to abortion. By returning the right to the states to push back the definition of personhood, legal abortion would have to be decreased to whatever degree they did this. And, for anyone worried that this right of legal definition might work in the opposite direction, the 14th Amendment requires personhood for anyone that has been born.
Posted by: Kevin at August 12, 2004 08:38 AM