For example, Ted Kennedy.
2007-07-09 09:58:35 · 25 answers · asked by a bush family member 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Liberating Iraq saved lives.
More people have died under U.N. sanctions. ( Even by the year 2000, a half of million children died. The real numbers of Saddam related deaths are even higher since Iraq was not attacked until three years later "Half a million children have died in Iraq since UN sanctions were imposed - most enthusiastically by Britain and the US. Three UN officials have resigned in despair. Meanwhile, bombing of Iraq continues almost daily. " Saturday March 4, 2000
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html
2007-07-09 10:03:54 · update #1
Ted Kennedy on Abortion:
1) Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during a violent crime.
2) Kennedy scores 100% on pro-choice voting record by pro abortion group
3) Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions
4) Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.
2007-07-09 10:11:59 · update #2
it is called hypocrisy.
2007-07-16 14:55:45 · answer #1 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ted Kennedy is for women's right to a safe abortion. Abortions have been occurring since conception started taking place. The only difference back then was they were very dangerous, illegal and unsafe. He doesn't force a woman to get one, just the right to choose whether or not to get one. He can't be any more religious in this way of thinking than imposing to force pregnancies to go to full term every time.
2007-07-17 16:59:03 · answer #2 · answered by Annie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why did Kennedy use a Lincoln instead of a Cadillac? Separation between Church and State. Pro-choice is just a way to disguise the truth.
2007-07-15 06:33:20 · answer #3 · answered by motorheadJJ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very simple.
First, not all religions are against abortion. So, if a political followed a religion that did not oppose abortion, there is no conflict.
Second, even if the politician did follow a religion that opposes abortion, they still swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, which says that there shall be no laws "respecting an establishment of religion".
Therefore, a politician may personally believe that abortion is wrong, but still also believe that it is not the govt's place to legislate activity based solely on the fact that some religions oppose it.
Third, I don't know anyone who is actually "pro-abortion". That would mean they think abortions are always a good idea and that everyone should have one. What many people are is "pro-choice", which means they think the decision should be made by the individual, and not forced (either way) by the govt.
Most people who are pro-life are actually anti-choice. They believe the decision should always be made by the govt, and not by the individual. China, by the way, is also anti-choice. Their govt just happened to make a different choice for everyone than the pro-lifers would want.
2007-07-09 17:03:01 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 9⤊ 4⤋
I have asked myself the same question...look at Harry Reid for instance...he is Mormon...I am Mormon...I KNOW what we are supposed to believe and stand for, and it ain't NOTHING like what Democrats stand for...how he can kneel at home and pray to Heavenly Father sincerely, while voting for abortions during the course of his day, is beyond hypocritical in my book! And I have friends who are in the church too, who claim they are Democrats, it's absurd! I argue with them all the time about it...I don't see how ANYONE could be a Democrat and claim to be religious at all!
2007-07-10 00:01:28 · answer #5 · answered by EM 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes they can claim it, but they are still hypocrites, Ted Kennedy is a drunken sot, who will split hell wide open, just not fast enough.
2007-07-17 08:31:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since when are politicans religious? That is an oxymoron.
Religious people have principals and values.
Name one politican that has principals and values that guide their lives.
People can twist and rationalize their actions.
2007-07-16 12:58:52 · answer #7 · answered by Unsub29 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is called covering all bases. He just wants to keep all the voters happy so you will vote for him.
2007-07-17 17:01:21 · answer #8 · answered by DeCaying_Roses 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Against abortion? Don't have one.
Until then, it is not against the law for someone to have an abortion or for a politician to hold religious beliefs while still upholding the law.
2007-07-09 17:03:23 · answer #9 · answered by ken erestu 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
i think it'a time to acknowledge the NECCESSITY of abortion.
but Americans need to quit using it for birth control.
that's the REAL complaint with it.
2007-07-09 17:04:50 · answer #10 · answered by daddio 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Who Cares - Said It Right!
~
2007-07-16 17:32:47 · answer #11 · answered by fitzovich 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋