The anti-choice marchers in Washington seem to be so far out of the mainstream Bush would rather talke to them in generalities on the phone from Kansas than appear before them
We re working to persuade more of our fellow Americans of the rightness of our cause, the president told abortion foes gathered at the foot of Capitol Hill on a chilly, rainy day. He spoke by telephone from Manhattan, Kan., where he gave a speech.
The anti-choice lobby has marginalized itself with its absolutist rhetoric, but the GOP needs to keep them on the bus – even if it’s the back of the bus – if it wants to keep its core voters on board.
>> Will George Support The Anti-Choice Marchers?
Go figure. Bush again pandering to a base, yet not supporting another Republican ideal. Just further shows his views are not congruent with the country or the Republican party. I am actually against abortion because it involves a death of a human or embreo(damn I can’t spell) or whatever. See is Bush said I am not for abortion, but I am not a woman or for controlling womens bodies, he would be drug out of office by his ultra-conservatives and would get slagged by pro-choice zealots. I would share this sentiment, but for Bush it doesn’t pander to a political group.
Oliver, can you come with a rational explanation for the use of the term “anti – choice”? How many choices are we talking about? Choices in clothing? Homes? Cars?
And what’s with the “crazies”? What makes people who are opposed to the termination of pregnancy “crazy”?
What will you think in the very near future that fetuses are responding to stimuli as early as eight weeks? Who will you call crazy then?
Hey, if they can call us pro-death, we can call them anti-choice. Fair’s fair.
You are either pro or against a woman’s right to have an abortion. Conservatives think they’re god and have dominion over people’s bodies, liberals believe otherwise, as do the vast majority of Americans.
Calling one side anti-choice is equally as intellectually dishonest as calling the other side pro-abortion.
Sadly, no, it isn’t. They are against the right to choose to have an abortion or not.
Supporting a president whosays he’s “pro-life”, but then sends 2000+ Americans and 10,000+ Irawq civilians to their deaths, is just as, if not more, intellectually dishonest. So we’re not exactly starting with a level playing field here.
“What will you think in the very near future that fetuses are responding to stimuli as early as eight weeks? Who will you call crazy then?”
Frank what was the point of that link? It goes to an illustration of an embryo at seven weeks and there’s no mention at all of said embryo responding to stimuli. You also know that there’s a clinical difference between an embryo and a fetus, right? It’s about two months and a whole lot more development. Can we call you crazy now?
Well, then, I’m anti – abortion rights. How’s that?
Frank
You haven’t addressed curmudgeon’s point. How can someone call themselves pro-life and support an unnecessary war in Iraq which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and yes children. By any logic, living and breathing human beings count as much as unborn ones, wouldn’t you agree?
“If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?”
GWB 1/23/2006, on why telling a handful of congress makes it ok for him to circumvent the law
Also most “pro-life” people tend to be pro-death penalty. Put that little nugget in your irony hookah…
I am not for taking away abortion rights, but I find abortion to be reprehensible, so according to the black and white crowd(Oliver and Frank), I am either lying or some sort of anomaly. The reason this topic is so toxic is because its fought by both extremes.
There is no right to have an abortion or an enumerated right to choose . So other than a completely flawed basic premise, good discussion.
Dugger, Good Morning
Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
There is no ‘right” to have an abortion or an enumerated “right to choose”. So other than a completely flawed basic premise, good discussion.
Dugger, Good Morning
You’re right, most didn’t volunteer for the Saddam regime.
But back to abortion. Abortions specifically target the unborn. Are you going to say that we specifically target civilians in Iraq?
Adult citizens volunteer for military service. The unborn do not volunteer for abortion. That was simple.
Iraqi civilians didn’t volunteer to have their country taken over either. Next red herring, please.
Yawn. Move the goalposts again.
If you are anti-abortion, don’t have one. Otherwise, MYOB. I am anti-abortion, and so is my wife, so she doesn’t CHOOSE to have one. I won’t presume to make decisions for anyone else.
“There is no right to have an abortion or an enumerated right to choose . So other than a completely flawed basic premise, good discussion.”
Using that logic….is there any sort of enumerated right of a fetus?
Also, if life truely starts at conception and a foreigner ‘conceives’ a child in the US shouldn’t that child be considered an American Citizen no matter where that child is born?
I didn’t move anything. There was a specific challenge about “pro-life” and Iraq and I answered it. You offered a specific rebuttal and I answered it. Simple.
Is there any enumerated right of a “child” or an “adolescent” or a “baby”?
Not if the law specifies birth as the qualification.
How can someone call themselves pro-life and support an unnecessary war in Iraq which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and yes children.
1) First of all, I call myself “pro – life”, because people who are ‘pro – abortion’ have the temerity to call themselves “pro – choice”.
I am anti – abortion, and there is no logical connection between terminating pregnancies at will, and organizing a national effort to afect diplomatic goals by military means (i.e., “make war”).
2) The operative word is “necessary.” I view this war as “necessary” and, therefore, justified.
Also most pro-life people tend to be pro-death penalty
1) I don’t know that to be true.
2) I’m not “pro” death penalty. I simply acknowledge that the average person considers revenge to be an integral part of the criminal justice system. If there were a way to be assured that a murderer never killed again, I would support it.
And, BTW, I think it’s wimpy for Bush not to appear at the March for Life. His little telephone talk didn’t say much, either.
I think he needs all that much “pro – choice” support to win an election, and he is a lame duck.
Who knows, may in ‘07.
“I think he needs all that much pro – choice support” should be “I don’t think he needs all that much pro – choice support”
See, I’m with factcheck here. Personally, I think abortion is wrong and it shouldn’t be done. But I was also raised to believe that God gets to make those calls, not man. That’s why we don’t grant pardons to folks who kill sinners. I honestly have no problem with most pro-lifers. Frank, you seem like a sane and rational person, so I ain’t got a beef with you. Like with all issues, I fear the lunatic fringe and there seems to be an awful lot of pro-lifers who think God’s telling them to bomb clinics, shoot doctors and harrass teenage rape victims. See Eric Rudolph, for instance.
Oh and if you don’t believe me, try googling “abortion doctor shooting”
“Not if the law specifies birth as the qualification. ”
So we can agree that protection, and the authority, of the constitution does not occur until ‘birth’?
Er…no.
stim,
I don’t know when life starts. You?
Dugger
JSF,
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’
Yes, and you still have not disputed my statement. Where is the “right to an abortion” or the “right to choose” set forth, specifically.
Lest I decide I have a right to all the Talisker in Scotland.
Dugger
JSF,
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Yes, and you still have not disputed my statement. Where is the right to an abortion or the right to choose set forth, specifically.
Lest I decide I have a right to all the Talisker in Scotland.
Dugger
Yes, Dugger, if you can convince a majority of the Supreme Court that you have a fundamental right to plunder scotch, then your home free.
From Roe vs. Wade:
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as … 1891, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
The 14th amendment prohibits the states from infringing on the rights of citizens of the United States. However, those rights are not explicitly detailed. The 9th amendment holds that just because a right is not listed does not mean it does not exist.
The Court in Roe also stated that the right to privacy re abortion is not absolute. Many feel the decision was poorly reasoned. It is possibe (probable) that today’s Court would (will) interpret the case law and historical notes cited in Roe differently today.
Dugger,
To paraphrase Vince Lombardi,
If you can get the Court to make such a ruling, hell wake me up, and I’ll go with you.
“I don t know when life starts. You?”
No, That’s why the only true measure is birth.
If you really want to be an SOB about it one could make the argument that in todays world you are not a citizen unless you have a SSN#. Therefore you are not awarded protection by the government.
This would certainly clear up lots of problems for the right as far as domestic spying and illegal immigration goes, but it totally kills your abortion argument.
stim
Didn’t kill my abortion argument. I merely noted it is not a specific right.
And if you don’t know when or where life begins, how can you be so adamant about ‘at birth”. Do you not worry about killing human beings unjustly? If that lil’ Booger is just down the pipe a little bit, kicking and screaming, “let me out” , you are confident about ending its existence? I’m not. I say to this day only an idiot has a unwavering position on abortion – either way. But at least religious people are erring (if they are erring) on the side of life.
JSA, Sorry about the JSF. I’ll be taking my Talisker brief to the Supremes (I thought they would be more symapthetic than the Vandellas) shortly.
Dugger, 10 yr old is like the world’s best campfire water
Dugger