This Congress has no Kennedy, but another one is being groomed

With the death of Senator Ted Kennedy in 2009 and the retirement of Rep. Patrick Kennedy in 2010, this new 112th Congress is the first one without a Kennedy in 63 years.

I suppose it’s not surprising that many pro-lifers would likely cheer that fact. Especially when you consider all the vitriol that Ted Kennedy heaped on those who fought for legal protection of the unborn.

To me, however, it brings mostly sadness that a family with so much promise and so much tragedy would spend these last few decades doing their best to protect the notorious practice of legal abortion.

With the deplorable violence in Tucson, my thoughts this week turned to Robert F. Kennedy who gave an amazing speech (off-the-cuff) when he heard the news that Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated. His impromptu speech to a crowd in Indianapolis did much to calm the people of that city who were understandably angry at the heartbreaking news.

Now a new Kennedy is being groomed for a possible run for office. Joseph P. Kennedy III, a 30-year-old prosecutor, spoke to the Massachusetts Legislature exactly 50 years after his great uncle, President Kennedy, delivered a speech there called “City on a Hill.”

I suppose it’s nearly impossible to hope that Joe Kennedy III and the next generation of Kennedys would question the relentless support of abortion and the havoc that it caused in our culture. But what a powerful voice that would be to have a 21st Century Kennedy demanding that we protect the weakest members of the human family: the unborn. Perhaps my hope is foolish.

“Children are the world’s most valuable resource and its best hope for the future,”

-President John F. Kennedy.

1,117 views

Categories:Uncategorized

13 thoughts on “This Congress has no Kennedy, but another one is being groomed

  1. Gary says:

    I believe this is the 112th Congress, not the 113th.

    1. Joshua Mercer says:

      You’re right. I need more coffee. I’ll fix it. Thanks, Gary!

  2. Jan says:

    Well, Gil, charity prevents me from addressing your statements how I would like, so I will confine them to more of what I ought to say: If you had a relationship with The Holy Living God, you would not relegate religion and theology to the realm of ancient mythology. Where has your mind and observational skills been not to take notice of the incredible pervasive order in all the universe? Order and beauty like this doesn’t just happen. Life doesn’t just happen. Whatever makes you think you or anyone else has the right to take someone else’s life? Do I really need to tell you that the taking of innocent life reaks havoc, on many many levels and makes the whole universe cry out in anguish, and dare I say, calls for judgement? Prideful people are not likely to submit to any “mind control” from the Vatican. People that seek the Truth will very likely turn to the Vatican for a sure anchor amid a flood of lies and unsound doctrine set loose on earth. We are very blessed and loved by God for Him to have given us this sure source of spiritual life and guidance known as the Catholic Church. It has stood the test of time and attacks from much fiercer voices than your own; but I know that the same God that made this incredible universe, and holds together still, can move your heart, call your name, change your life and make you a much happier man. I’ll pray for you Gil – I want you to have what I have – I consider your comment to be a cry for help. I bet others will pray for you too. The mercy and love of God spreads like that – God Bless – Jesus I trust in You

  3. Gil says:

    What havoc has abortion caused? The real havoc would be bringing to term all those unwanted, unsupportable lives. You people are too submissive to the mind control of others–meaning the Vatican. It’s long past the time you think for yourselves, look around you, see the sociology, the psychology, and a whole lot more than ancient mythology called religion and theology.

    1. Jacob says:

      Well, since you asked:

      Women forced into abortions by parents or “lovers.” Post abortion health issues. Massive amounts of regret and the need of counseling by women who aborted their children’s lives.

      Not to mention the slaughter of a couple million innocent human beings. That enough havoc for you?

      And if you’re trying to turn “faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church” into an insult, you may be trolling the wrong website. Just a heads up.

      You may also want to come up with a way of defending abortion that doesn’t come as close to calling the children of the poor and minorities, and hence the poor and minorities themselves, worthless. That is, if the abortion of a poor woman’s child is good, and if that poor woman was also born to poor parents, then her abortion would have been good. Meaning that it would have been better if she never lived. Which is, I’m sure you’d agree, not something that anyone really means.

    2. marv!!! says:

      Gil, thanks for the post and the clarity.

    3. Joe Heschmeyer says:

      Gil,

      Your comment is the sort of thing that gives atheists a bad name. You feel totally qualified to comment on all sorts of things you clearly have no idea about. To wit:

      1. You assert, without evidence or even a shred of logic, that abortion has caused no havoc. That’s bad sociology. I’d suggest the works of law professor Richard Stith (“Her Problem, Her Choice: How Legalized Abortion Empowers Men Over Women” is a good place to start, outlining the legal and sociological consequences of abortion).

      2. You assert, without evidence or even a shred of logic, that the children killed in the womb would have been “unwanted” and “unsupportable,” and would have caused “the real havoc.” This is shoddy sociology and economics. Julian Simon’s “The Ultimate Resource II” destroys this argument using hundreds of pages of empirical data. Short answer: you treat the unborn like they’re just an expense, but kids grow up to be adults who make money. The major economic crisis the US currently faces is that we have a baby boom about to retire, and not enough young people to support them.

      Statistically, “gray out,” in which economies become increasingly composed of retirees, as we’re beginning to see in Western Europe and (especially) Japan, is a much more daunting problem than the myths of “overpopulation” (Simon specifically debunks this one, showing increased population is nearly always a predictor of greater economic growth, contra your assertion).

      3. Finally, you claim (again, without evidence or even logic) that the people you’re responding to are only pro-life because of “ancient mythology.” This is terrible psychology. Perhaps if we were saying “we believe in Noah’s Ark,” you could accuse of using mythology, but what “myths” in Scripture are you claiming we’re relying on? Perhaps I should point out here that fully 10% of atheists and non-religious self-describe as pro-life across the board, without exception (that is, they’re MORE pro-life than non-Christian religious). See, e.g., http://www.gallup.com/poll/22222/religion-politics-inform-americans-views-abortion.aspx

      So you attack a group of people you don’t understand on an issue you clearly haven’t wrapped your mind around or understood very well, and your comments full of inciting insults rather than employing logic (much less the sociology and psychology you’re accusing us of ignoring). I don’t intend to let this become a drawn-out Internet feud (that hardly seems worth either of our time), but perhaps a bit more humility in the future? God bless you.

  4. marv!!! says:

    What is the purpose of your post other than to bash the Kennedy’s who are dead and therefore not able to defend themselves regarding your statements? Is there nothing more pertinent to discuss?

    1. pat says:

      What is there for them to defend? And what is more pertinent than defending the unborn?

      1. marv!!! says:

        They could defend their belief that protecting a woman’s right of choice IS the defense of the unborn and that the suppression of women is no way to fight any battle and that the suppression of women is very possibly the number one cause of abortion.

        1. Brian C says:

          ‘the suppression of women is very possibly the number one cause of abortion.’

          Marv,

          Could you explain further what you mean by this statement?

          1. marv!!! says:

            Brian C, the number one cause of low self-esteem in women comes from the suppression of them throughout history. They have been taught, in one way or another, that men are superior to women. Certainly, the Catholic Church is a prime example of that teaching. Women with low self-esteem can and do make poor choices at times and some of those choices lead to unwanted pregnancies and abortion. Raise a woman’s self-esteem and unwanted pregnancies and abortions would drop dramatically. Raises a woman’s self-esteem must begin with the way we raise our kids.

    2. Joe Heschmeyer says:

      I didn’t see it as an assault on the dead, myself. I saw it as nostalgic of an age in which Kennedys stood up for what was right (Bobby for civil rights, JFK for valuing children) rather than legalized abortion (which the living Kennedys vocally support), and hopeful that the Kennedys alive today would follow in the footsteps of their forebears’ better moments. So that’s how I read it.

      That said, it’s true that in saying that the Kennedys have spent the last few decades protecting abortion, this includes many individuals now deceased. But is that any more of an attack on the dead than saying something like “Republicans have been on the wrong side of labor issues for fifty years”? After all, both include groups in which some members have died. I suppose it’s possible (I’m not going to say likely) that this was intended as some sort of attack on Teddy without using his name, but I don’t think it’s intended that way or need be read that way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.