Joseph Farah Questions "Bush and Abortion"

WND.com ^ | 10-30-03 | Farah, Joseph

[cpforlife.org]

Bush and Abortion - PING

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Delphinium]

I will not rest entirely until this nation is awakened to abortion as both a national tragedy as well as a constitutional threat to all of our God-given rights – as well as an endangerment to the lives and liberties of our posterity.

AMEN, Same for me.

United States is not ready for a total abortion ban.

The United States wasn't ready to deal with terrorism either, but decided the consequences were to great to ignore it any longer.

The consequences of abortion will be MUCH greater.

[Delphinium]

Pregant women shall not be deprived of life or liberty.

I bet the Thomas Paine of the time of the Constitution would be smart enough to know that a pregnant woman is carrying another person.

Especially in this day and age, there is no excuse.Only guilt, and unnatural affections.

[Delphinium]

I was thinking in particular of the conservatives who write the planks for the GOP

I agreed with your comments from post 14, and 16.

They simply move America in that direction each year step by step.

And this year I am extremely worried because of the new stars in the Republican party. Condoleezza, Rudy, and Arnold.

[Wait4Truth]

This was found on Issues2000.org:

Reagan was not as obsessive about anti-abortion legislation as he often seemed. Early in his California governorship he had signed a permissive abortion bill that has resulted in more than a million abortions. Afterward, he inaccurately blamed this outcome on doctors, saying that they had deliberately misinterpreted the law. When Reagan ran for president, he won backing from pro-life forces by advocating a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. Reagan’s stand was partly a product of political calculation, as was his tactic after he was elected of addressing the annual pro-life rally held in Washington by telephone so that he would not be seen with the leaders of the movement on the evening news. While I do not doubt Reagan’s sincerity in advocating an anti-abortion amendment, he invested few political resources toward obtaining this goal.

Source: The Role of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, p. 812 Jul 2, 1991

Perhaps it is not quite fair to hold President Bush to a much higher standard. I admire and respect both President Reagan and President Bush but perhaps they are not quite as different as some would have us believe.

[Dscott_FR]

Get your head out of the sand Dubyah!

"Consensus is the negation of leadership"...
Margaret Thatcher

[Theodore R.]

Also, the founder of the Democrat party, Andrew Jackson: "One man with courage makes a majority."

[jla]

The Reagan attribute is not a fair, or accurate, measure to use. For one thing, he later wholeheartedly regretted he ever signed that legislation when he was a governor of California.

RR wrote a book condemning abortion.
One merely has to read thru Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation to know where RR stood, exactly, on the issue of abortion.

[jla]

"Consensus is the negation of leadership"... Margaret Thatcher

Great quote! Thanks for posting that.

[narses]

Ping. Is politics the answer?

[2timothy3.16]

Look how long it took for the PBA to get passed.

Yes, and now it seems it will take almost that long for the President to sign it.

Dear Mr. President,

Please stop procrastinating and sign the ban.
Respectfully,
A frustrated and tired Pro-life Christian

[ninenot]

While Bush has not led any charges against abortion, neither did Ron Reagan...

But the Bush "behind the scenes" work has been exceptionally positive. His UN ambassador and staff have fought abortion tooth-and-nail, top to bottom in the UN.

You will also note that his Court nominees have been singularly unimpressed by the "reasoning" behind ROEvWade--which is why Teddy & Co have screwed most of them.

It's possible that Bush could do more--but then again, maybe it's not possible. Farah, like all of us, has no patience with DC politics.

[ninenot]

I dunno about "dumb."

In front of me is an old saying: "Guile must wear clothes, but truth goes naked." (Scots proverb.)

Conservatives have only the naked truth. The libs have a well-dressed, ah, whore--which is attractive to many.

We can't "dress up" for the game.

OTOH, it is true that conservatives are not go-for-the-throat street-fighters. Perhaps they have too many principles to act in the same fashion as do the Libs.

[ninenot]

Hello!

Your mindless ramblings once again pollute this thread. Go back to DU from whence you came.

Cute how you throw sophistry around as though it were equivalent to real thought.

[woofie]

Farah, Joseph

Why dont you do something if its so easy..

[winker]

Innocent lives hang in the balance here on this issue. Bush is politicizing and waffeling on an issue that cannot be ignored any longer. The socialist proponets were more than eager to ram this down the throats of gulliable Americans and now we must rightfully do the right thing with no lost time. Bush is wrong again on this one and Farrah is Right!

[William Terrell]

"I don't think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions," he explained.

This is president Bush. Why would he say something like that, being the chief executive and commander? He must know that if the SC ruled the state laws unconstitutional by using the federal constitution, the any federal law banning abortion would have to be unconstitutional. If not, how not?

But he fights a good war, huh?

[rdb3]

OTOH, it is true that conservatives are not go-for-the-throat street-fighters. Perhaps they have too many principles to act in the same fashion as do the Libs.

Now you're making my point. That's why the Right (I won't say "conservatives" because that term is losing meaning) needs people such as myself who don't mind getting down and dirty with the Left.

You mention principles. Okay, then. Fine. But principles have no legs nor arms of their own. They sound good and puff up the chest with pride. Then what?

Worshipping principle is like a near-death starving man admiring a dinner plate. No matter how pretty it is, it won't do him any good unless he takes the action of eating it, correct? Even if he has no eating utensils and will look like a slob while eating!

If your enemy is shooting at you with an AR-15, yet you insist on firing back with a BB gun due to vaguely defined "principle," then you deserve what happens to you for being stupid.

That was a rhetorical "you," so you know.

[ninenot]

I understand the 'rhetorical you,' and you will not find me too lightly-armed for most gun battles (although my .50-cal purchases have been delayed for economic reasons...)

Be that as it may, conservatives (the Right) have one major difficulty, and it's really only one: they will not lie like hell (and I hope you don't either.)

The Left constructs "needs"/"Crises" based on lies--and proceeds to attempt solutions which empower the Gummint. The Right sees the "crises" as the ever-growing and stultifying hand of Gummint (in most cases,) and has failed to construct the language necessary to eradicate the problem. For practical purposes, there's only one reason: the "right" on which we rely for solutions are GUMMINT-dependent, too. They rather like being in a position where they are looked upon as Roman pro-consuls, having petitioners and rent-seekers at their doorstep and at their beck and call.

Thus, the problem may, in the end, NOT be soluble, and no amount of street-fighting skills can be applied which will solve it.