[extropy-chat] Re: Bush and Kerry on abortion funding

[Ody777 at comcast.net]

Damien Broderick wrote (11 Oct):

<<Here's the relevant section, with my summaries and comments:

==================

DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who 
believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or 
her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to 
that person?

KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life 
and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. 
Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, 
leads me today.

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for 
someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, 
atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

=============================

[This is the key move. Kerry reminds us that moral objections to funding 
abortion are a matter of faith and not fact. He might have said the same to 
a Jew or Muslim outraged that tax money is spent subsidizing pig farming, 
or to Adventists aghast that hospitals are funded *with their money* to 
transfuse blood, or to Flat Earthers shocked, shocked I say, to learn that 
the schools *they are forced to fund* teach that planets are spherical.]>>


Yes, but the problem is that Kerry HIMSELF is in the position of the Jew or Muslim with regard to pig farming or the Adventist with regard to blood transfusions.  I repeat: “How could he possibly ignore that in his practical decisions on abortion?”

I have never understood how a politician can be a member of a church that says abortion is homicide, yet insist that his commitment to the church will have no effect on his policies.  If Kerry came right out and said, “I disagree with the Church on this: abortion is NOT homicide,” that would make a lot more sense to me.  But he seems to want to have his cake and eat it too.

Would an Adventist who sincerely agreed with all the doctrines of his religion be a good person to put in charge of administering policies on blood transfusions?


You wrote:

<<Kerry reminds us that moral objections to funding abortion are a matter of faith and not fact.>>


Faith and not fact?  What would you think of a politician who said, “I consider murder a moral crime--but my opinion on that is just a matter of faith, not fact.  I wouldn’t try to impose it on anybody.” 

Thanks for a very eloquent and thoughtful response, but I don’t think you’ve hit the main point.  The various other issues Kerry raised, and which you discuss (his responsibility to “represent all the people,” the unfairness of abortion being available to the rich and not to the poor, etc.) are irrelevant.

(But to follow up on one of those digressions: if Kerry has to “represent all the people,” that includes pro-lifers, right?  So if the pro-lifers were in the majority, would he favor outlawing abortion?  Is he implying that the issue should be decided by a mere opinion poll?)

Like Bush, I find it hard to “decipher” Kerry’s response to the question.   Maybe that means I’m stupid too.


Rob Masters