Why not scrutinize Kilgore's abortion views now?
I found the Times-Dispatch's editorial page assault on Tim Kaine's death penalty position interesting this morning, if unsurprising. It was probably the last bit they needed before they endorse Jerry Kilgore. But I wonder if they will rake Kilgore over the coals for his abortion views the way they did with Kaine and his death penalty views this morning. They carefully parsed out Kaine's moral vs. legal objections and I would like to see them do that with Kilgore too. He is obviously pro-life from a religious and moral standpoint but has Kilgore ever made legal arguments for its restriction or abolition, similar to Kaine's arguments that the death penalty doesn't deter crime and that other nations without it are safer than the U.S.? I don't know the answer to that, but I sure would like to see the same intense scrutiny brought to Kilgore's positions.
posted by Janet Freisner @ 10/17/2005 04:04:00 PM
1 Comments:
Kaine believes the death penalty is wrong, but should be legally allowed/enforced. Ironically, his view on abortion is the same. While (abortion, death penalty) may be wrong, it shouldn't be illegal. Kilgore believes that abortion is wrong and should NOT be allowed by law. He also believes the death penalty is okay and should be exercised by law.
You then use this as justification to ask Kilgore to now give legal arguments as to why abortion should be illegal, when the arguments you have stated Kaine uses against the death penalty are political and not legal. (The arguments on abortion have been stated repeatedly, so it is safe to assume that Kilgore supports at least most of them. Namely that pro-lifers believe that medical & scientific evidence supports that the unborn are living human beings and as such are worthy of legal protection). So what we really should ask is why Kaine consistently believes that something fundamentally wrong should be legally exercised. P.S. I sincerely doubt he would say the same to NAMBLA regarding child-molestation. So what is his distinction for the difference? Politics...all politics.
Post a Comment
<< Home