Teresa Heinz Kerry says she's pro-choice but believes abortion is "stopping the process of life," it was reported yesterday.
"I don't view abortion as just a nothing," said Heinz Kerry in an interview with Newsweek, in which she took a side in the long-festering debate over when life begins. ...
"My belief - and I maybe am very wrong - is that women, generally speaking, do not want to have abortions," Heinz Kerry said.
"With the exception of people who are mindless - and there will always be mindless people of both sexes - most women wouldn't want to," she added.
Heinz Kerry once said that she was "not 100% pro-choice," but told the magazine that now the issue is black and white for her.
"I ask myself if I had a 13-year-old daughter who got drunk one night and got pregnant, what would I do. Christ, I'd go nuts," Heinz Kerry said.
-- Teresa Heinz Speaks Out
Shades of Gray: The unfortunate thing is that comments like this are seen as somehow controversial. It is a clear example of how simplicity overwhelms reason. Few who support legal abortion truly think no "life" at all is involved or that the procedure is "nothing" special. Also, many who support abortion rights think it is at most a necessary evil, and oppose it in certain cases on a personal level. They are not really "100% pro-choice." It is troubling that we have to speak in "black and white" terms or fear some sort of "gotcha" or "give an inch, they will take a mile" problem. Finally, yes, someone can be morally against something, and think individuals should have a right to moral choice (especially if the alternative would result in a more problematic situation) in the matter. Free will and all that.
To continue on a similar thread, I find it troubling how economics dominates our political campaign. It is deemed important for Kerry and other Democrats to focus on economic policy ("domestic policy" often amounts to just that). This seems a rather Marxist way of looking at things, but it both sides do it -- cutting taxes is the main driving force of the Republicans these days, other than perhaps imperialistic war (the rich and war, two things Jesus was quite supportive of, right Dubya?) .
I personally, putting aside the fact I never really had much $$$, consider liberty, integrity, honesty, humor, humility, openness, and a whole slew of things more important than the green stuff. I remember reading libertarian theorist Friedrich Hayek's The Road To Serfdom (small volume -- my sort of philosophical book), in which he warned the poor that government assistance and regulation will at a certain point rob them of their freedom. It might give them a certain degree of security, but at what cost? I thought it a powerful warning. Is freedom now a matter of money, reduction of liberty for our security, and killing people overseas? It's so sad.
Humor: Laura Flanders had a funny question to an lesbian activist at the march yesterday. (Good job Laura, going there, and being back with great sound clips for your evening show.) She asked if the President has given bush a bad name -- this was almost as funny as hearing the conservative talk shot host/daughter of a preacher she had on say "crap." I think it too underreported that our President, the boss of John Ashcroft, has a last name that can be seen as obscene. Given his presidency, it is quite fitting in fact.