Posted on 02/28/2006 6:36:43 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
Who claimed the President changed his position? Look, I'm with you on rape and incest exception, but I will call fouls on both sides of this debate as I see them.
The morning after pill IS NOT an abortion pill, it works by preventing the release of an egg. So unless your defintion of abortion is preventing the egg and sperm from meeting the morning after pill IS NOT ABORTION.
This has been President Bush's stance from the git-go. Why is everyone falling out with the red a$$ now like it's a big surprise? Never mind.
I hadn't heard that saying but it sure is a good one.
This is the pro life movements nuclear option.
Yeah. I think South Dakota erred in their politics but I give them an A+ for consistency of thought.
you nailed it there.
Is it pro-abortion to ban 99.99999% of abortions?
I've yet to meet someone in real life that thought like some of these keyboard clowns do here. I'm a guy, course you knew that already, and I believe Bush's position is consistent with his stated position going into the 2000 elections, and that rape and incest are reasonable exceptions.
As Torie pointed out, the Republican party is not a monolithic party.
FR has shown, even in this thread, not even Conservatives are monolithic. Rush even demonstrated that today on his show, reacting to a Buckley piece in NRO regarding the Iraq War. (which Buckley said we're losing).
Even the writers at NRO don't see eye-to-eye on the same issues day in and day out.
There are freepers on this thread who have indicated the president is drinking, has abandoned his base on this issue, etc. Those are the people who are pretending the president has changed his position in this.
Agree, but this "abortion in the case of rape" thing is nothing more than a red herring.
How many of the approximately 1.5 million abortions annually in the States are a result of a "rape situation?"
I bet it's in the hundreds or even less making it statistically insignificant. Yet, it's often what drives the issue.
It's tough seeing the people you would like people to have the right to kill, isn't it?
yeah....
you know, instead of acting from a position of logical and reason, which some have on this thread, others are taking the typical knee-jerk approach which is really becoming more of an attribute of the RIGHT instead of the LEFT wing.....
Yep you could be wrong
Pro-Abortion is saying it is okay to kill a child because the dad raped somebody.
Yep that is pro-abortion. Killing is killing is killing is killing. SPIN it any way you like. Most do.
The morning after pill will abort a fertilized egg too.
Just reading between the lines. Don't you think if some rape victim was dragged into certain church services, attended by some posters here, and proclaimed her desire to carry some genetically defective fetus to term, there wouldn't be Hallelujahs and Hosannas? Of course there would.
It's "Legislating by exception" at its finest as I say.
Better than the absurd legal contradiction of the man who gets arrested if he accidentally hits a pregnant woman on her way to an abortion and kills the baby.
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.