THE HAWK THAT EATS ITS YOUNG

KERRY'S POSITION ON ABORTION SHOULD DISTURB EVERYONE
(Reprinted from July)

Just before John Kerry thrilled Democrats and near-Democrats alike with his selection of the Dan Quayle of the left, he said something that few in the press bothered to examine closely.

The headline they missed should have read: "Kerry declares support for murder."
None of the mainstream media outlets chose to interpret the candidate's remarks this way, of course. By "this way" I mean the only possible way they could be interpreted. Since (not in case) you missed it, here is the verbatim statement made by the pro-choice Senator: "I oppose abortion personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

Now. While all you pro-choicers who were busy that weekend wipe the Chardonnay off your copy of Bill Clinton's book, let me explain why this is such an enormously important component in Kerry's character map.

Kerry has repeatedly, consistently, unendingly, and loyally toed the Massachusetts liberal line on abortion. He votes for every expansion of the practice, and against every common sense measure that would help to make it (as the Democrats never tire of claiming they want it to be) "safe, legal, and rare." Moreover, like all pro-choice Catholic politicians, he has claimed to be "personally pro-life" while voting publicly "pro-choice."

The reason so many allegedly Catholic politicians can get away with this theological sleight of hand is that no one in their right mind, from the Pope to the President, believes for a minute that these people are "personally pro-life." Unless that phrase is meant to mean that the politician would find it rather distasteful to personally, with their own hands, crush the skull of an unborn baby in order to personally commit a partial-birth abortion, they are actually "personally" pro-choice. However, they continue to claim to be Catholic in order to have a chance of fooling some of those who fall on the red side of the electoral map into not considering them evil weasels.

None, though, has ever come out with the kind of blasphemy against the pro-choice movement that Kerry's statement represents. No pro-choice politician is EVER supposed to admit--er, claim--that life begins at conception. The feminist pro-abortion movement doesn't stand for that sort of thing. Anyone who could say such a thing is clearly beholden to a superstitious, unscientific mindset, a puppet of the Vatican, a right-wing fanatic, a kook.

Except this time.

This time they, like the media, are strangely silent about Kerry's newfound commitment to the fetus. He hasn't yet exhibited the "love affair" with it that Jocelyn Elder accused the pro-life movement of having (insert your favorite joke about the hugginess of the Kerry/Edwards team here), but he's opened the rhetorical door.

In fact, he's done more than that. He's painted himself into a corner with people on both sides of the question, as well as with people who can follow a simple argument.

This is what it boils down to. If you believe that "life begins at conception," then any interference with pregnancy after that point is definitionally an intentional termination of "life," which most people, red and blue alike, would agree pretty much adds up to murder.

So, John Kerry's position is that unborn children are alive, that he hates the fact that they are killed, but since the Supreme Court has allowed it to happen he will defend to the death a woman's right to choose to--well, to murder her child.

Huh?

Some think that perhaps Kerry is simply lying. But why would he say something so stupid? Why, if he doesn't believe that life begins at conception, would he say such a thing? And if he does believe it, what else can we make of his willingness to preserve "choice" but that he is simply not bothered by cold-blooded murder?
Of course, that would also explain how he can claim to think not only that the war in Iraq should not have been started (even though he gave the president permission by voting for it), but ALSO that we should not now leave. Apparently, he is bothered by the loss of life in Iraq to pursue what he considers a phony war, but not so much so that he is willing to make it stop.

Kerry is, quite simply, a man without a conscience. Out of his own mouth we have the proof. A man of conscience does not define murder and then advocate it. Instead, as president Bush has done, he examines his conscience and his faith with great care, finds the right position, and stays with it.

President Bush thought through his position on stem cell research. It is clear-eyed and clear-headed. Despite the opposition of conservative icon Nancy Reagan and her not-so-beloved of the right son, Ron, President Bush has no intention of changing his policy. The Congressmen can beg him, Orrin Hatch can side with the embryo-killers, and famous sick celebrities can whine all they like, but President Bush is a man of his word. The president's position of conscience dictates his position on policy, and dependably so.

John Kerry, on the other hand, has hidden his conscience from us lo these many years, only revealing now that his treatment of fetal life is even more horrific and self-serving than we thought.

When we knew only of John Kerry that he was "Catholic" and that he was "pro-choice," we could rest fairly easily, understanding him to be merely a "lapsed" Catholic who deep down worshipped at the altar of Planned Parenthood. But now we know something horrible about him, and the notion that this happy murderer might someday be president should scare us to death.

To be completely inflammatory about it, even Hitler didn't believe he was murdering human beings when he gassed the Jews. He thought of the Jews as sub-human. Even the most strident pro-lifer has a hard time believing that pro-choicers believe, as they do, that abortion is murder. They cannot understand how that simple fact eludes their opponents, but they do give them the benefit of the doubt and accept their claim to see only "tissue" when they look at the ultrasound.

But here we have, for the very first time, a self-confessed sociopath, a man who understands the words of morality but cannot internalize them. It is interesting to note this in light of his past behavior (you did know he was in Vietnam, didn't you? I think everyone has gotten that memo by now).

John Kerry, as we have all been told until it makes us want to puke, was a "war hero" in Vietnam. He spent four whole months there, during which time he later claimed to have witnessed and participated in "atrocities." When he returned to the safety of the states to pursue his political ambition, he viciously turned on his fellow soldiers, accusing them of all manner of horrific treatment of their Vietnamese opponents. Though he confessed incessantly on Capitol Hill, he never apparently bothered to inform anyone who might have been able to put a stop to it in Vietnam. Now we know why.

We can now see that it is likely that Kerry's behavior was fully sociopathic, entirely to serve his political ambition. John Kerry had no reaction to the atrocities he saw while in country; he saved his reaction for the cameras and the eager ears of politicians and media vultures seeking clubs with which to beat President Nixon. They got what they wanted, and so did he--a hawk outfit he could put on and take off at will.

For most of his political life, it's been hanging there in the closet, waiting for the right time, waiting until it was time to go to the costume party in Boston. When the Democratic National Convention came, the suit was freshly pressed, the medals were lined up nicely (forget he once threw them away; they're back now), and Kerry's metaphorical shoes were shined. And the Senator put on his suit and went to his Party.

When Kerry came back to Boston he was wearing the hawk suit, and he was claiming to be a patriot. Any discrepancies between his voting record and his purported support for the troops were, of course, decried as "questioning" his "patriotism."

But now we have a more serious charge on which to hang the Senator. We need not question his "patriotism" or try to have him done up for treason. No, this most damning statement of his own making provides a gap between fantasy and reality that will drive the Democrats screaming to the fax machines, if anyone has the guts to bring it up in debate.

I'll spare the news media the work of designing the question. Here it is: "Senator Kerry, you said this summer that you believe that life begins at conception. If that is the case, can you reassure pro-choice Americans that you don't believe it enough to actually prevent any murders by abortion? And can you assure pro-life voters that you believe it enough to make an effort to reduce the number of abortions that take place in this country, perhaps by following the President's lead in banning partial-birth abortion, encouraging adoption by federal policy, or reducing funding to Planned Parenthood International?"

"Senator?"

That sound you hear is Kerry's four million paid and unpaid advisors wrackng their brains to make this position comprehensible to human beings.

For when someone has the nerve to point out the difference between Kerry's "life begins at conception" core belief and his incredible willingness to vote for policies that threaten, shorten, and terminate that life, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Because now we are questioning his humanity.