By James W. Dolan

John Kerry says he believes life begins at conception, is personally opposed to abortion as a matter of conscience but in a pluralistic society does not think he has the right to impose his belief upon others. Why not?

Regrettably, because he would virtually guaranty his defeat if he took the logical, morally consistent position that what is fundamentally wrong for him is also wrong for others. Even if he took the more moderate position that a fetus, if not alive at least has the potential for life which itself is worthy of some protection, he would likely lose.

If human life begins at conception then abortion is homicide. If one believes that homicide and slavery are objective evils is there not then an obligation to oppose them regardless of the views of others? Are there no moral imperatives? Can one be morally opposed to abortion, yet support abortion rights?

Were the abolitionists correct in opposing slavery regardless of the wishes of the southern states? How foolish it sounds to be opposed to slavery as a matter of conscience, yet support slaveholders' rights. Is Senator Kerry's position the moral equivalent of such a stand?

I don't know when life begins. But until someone proves it does not begin at conception, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the fetus. Even if it only had the potential for life, that in and of itself would warrant at least the same legal protection we provide endangered species.

Abortion may be homicide. That's enough for me to oppose it. I cannot conclude that what may be homicide is wrong for me but all right for others who believe otherwise.

It is peculiar indeed that nobody justifies slavery under any conditions but not so homicide. We justify homicide in self-defense, in war and as punishment for heinous crimes - all of which are subject to review. The state can execute murderers but could never sentence them to slavery for life - strip them of their humanity and make them chattel.

If Senator Kerry believes that abortion is homicide does he then find it justifiable given the beliefs of the mother? Does society add the mother's unreviewable "right to choose" to continue or end a life as a further justification for homicide? Is the mother's action a form of self-defense against the life within her?

I believe homicide is evil under any circumstance. However, it is less wrong under certain "justifiable" circumstances, all of which are defensive (self-defense, war, capital punishment - societal defense). To argue that a mother has the unfettered right to homicide as a means of protecting herself from the risks posed by her unborn living child seems absurd.

What is fundamentally wrong as a matter of conscience for Senator Kerry cannot be justified and supported as right for someone else. However, maintaining a consistent, firm position on this issue would be politically unpopular and would likely cost him the election. Expediency requires that he have it both ways.

On the horns of a moral dilemma, like so many other Catholic politicians he professes personal opposition but supports a woman's right to choose. He thus exercises his own right to choose political survival over principle. The good he believes he can do in office overrides his concern about some of the things he must do to get there.

I will vote for John Kerry despite the inconsistencies that almost of necessity have become a part of public life. Desperately trying to avoid offending any significant voting bloc, candidates trim and dissemble. Too bad the choice sometimes has to be between moral courage and political oblivion.

In the final analysis, I believe the democrats care more about workers, the have-nots and the dispossessed in a country with a widening gulf between rich and poor. Paradoxically, it's President Bush that puts a higher value on the weakest of the weak while promoting the interests of the wealthy.

(James W. Dolan is a retired Dorchester District Court judge who now practices law at Dolan, Connly & Flaherty, 50 Redfield Street, Dorchester; jdolan@dolanconnly.com)