Posted on 08/19/2004 1:48:14 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Excellent post. It's almost painful to see how much people want to ignore reality and make Laura into something she's obviously not. I punched "Laura Bush pro-choice" into Google today, and found example after example of people (from the left and right) who assume she's pro-choice....based upon her own words.
What is with all this crap? I have been tied up for the last few weeks and now I come back to lies, innuendoes, and the 'holier than thou' crowd with more threads on abortion. That really is not the central theme of this election no matter how much they want to push it -- national security is the #1 issue and if their attempts to pull conservatives away from Pres Bush because of abortion (rumors at that) goes unchallenged then we could be in trouble.
Please tell me this isn't related to Keyes running in IL. I have tried to give him the benefit of the doubt but if his supporters are attacking the President and First Lady in an election year over the same old tired rumors on abortion which are not based on fact, I am not going to be happy.
One thing is for certain, Keyes supporters will never be accussed of being uniters. It is their way or no way!
Aren't you glad I'm back?
Glad you're back.
Sorry about the mess.
It's clearly all bush's fault.
< / sarcasm >
I said no such thing. I was trying to point out that there is a different basis of argument for the supporter of Roe vs. Wade than for the supporter of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The former argument is based on limiting the power of government to intervene in a certain situation. The latter is based on the government making a utilitarian decision that sacrificing life in certain situations is worth it because of the potential reward. It is quite possible to support one and abhor the other.
I am not saying that I support either.
I'm on a thread populated by crazy people, and you accuse ME of emotionalism? That's funny!
Let me try one more time, since you persist in saying silly things.
I know what Laura said on Today, and I have addressed that several times. I am VERY pro-life, and when I heard her, I didn't assume much of anything, because her answer wasn't that revealing of anything except that she probably wouldn't march in any parades against Roe v. Wade. It simply wasn't.
I knew that she wasn't a parade marching, letter writing, volunteering, contributing pro-lifer like I am, but there are so many gradations of being pro-life I didn't draw conclusions based on her 'No' answer.
In the mean time, I observed the crazies around here call her a baby killer, say she had blood on her hands, and accuse her of atrocities. Some of those people are still doing that.
THEY are the emotionally unbalanced ones, NOT I. I am absolutely and completely rational about this, but I TRUST HER CHARACTER.
You have been so defensive about this, and I don't even know if you said anything stupid to start with. I think you must be a defensive sort of guy who likes to argue with strangers (but I'm not wasting my time going back to see how all this started).
At any rate, the fact, cold and unemotional, still remains. Anyone who says that Laura is NOT pro-life, is accusing her of lying about it, and most likely her husband for being complicit in it.
I've said that multiple times, and all your defensiveness and silly accusations don't change the facts. Laura said, "I'm pro-life." If you're saying she's not, you're accusing her of lying.
If you're not, fine. Now leave me alone. I'm off to church.
Next time you get into a 'debate' with someone who trusts the character of the President and First Lady.....DON'T use the 'walk on water' line.
It's so emotional and irrational............not to mention OLD.
You'll get farther in life if you avoid absurdity when you make accusations.
It's certainly possible to support this kind of utilitarian ethic. The Nazis did. The problem is that this position is abominable.
I've given this thread some thought over the weekend. Most pro-lifers consider Roe vs Wade to be what they want undone, as a big step toward supporting the pro-life view. I don't see how someone can not want Roe vs Wade to be overturned and still be pro life.
But that is the basis for the embryonic stem cell research argument. One could hold the position that there is no value to the human embryo, that it is a mass of cells and nothing more. However, if there is value to the embryos, if they are human life, that value is outweighed by the value of the research.
The problem with this type of thinking is that it winds up at Auschwitz.
One can hold any position. But it's unreasonable to believe that a human embryo is not a human being. It belongs to the species "human" and it's a living being.
You'll get no argument from me on that.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.