Bush's conference call to anti-abortion supporters

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Ok, so Bushie-boy makes a conference call to "rally the troops" who were marching in DC.

Bush tells abortion foes, 'We will prevail'
33 years after Roe v. Wade ruling, abortion debate continues

Monday, January 23, 2006; Posted: 1:31 p.m. EST (18:31 GMT)

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- President Bush told abortion opponents Monday that they are pursuing "a noble cause" and making a real difference in the campaign to recruit more Americans to stand on their side.

"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, Kansas, where he was to give a speech.

"This is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens and is rooted in America's deepest principle," the president said. "And history tells us that with such a cause we will prevail."

Supporters of abortion rights held a rally on Sunday, marking the 33rd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling, and urging the Senate to reject the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. They held a candlelight vigil in front of the court, waving signs that read: "Alito--No Justice For Women," and "Keep Abortion Legal."

After the rally on the National Mall, the demonstrators were marching to the Capitol and the Supreme Court.

"You believe, as I do, that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak, and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient," Bush told the abortion foes.

"These principles call us to defend the sick and the dying, persons with disabilities and birth defects, all who are weak and vulnerable, especially unborn children," the president said.

Other rallies were being held across the country.

In St. Paul, Minnesota, Katie Whitte braved below-freezing temperatures outside the state capitol to march for the first time against abortion.

"This year is special for me because I am a mother out of wedlock," said Whitte, 20, whose daughter is 5 months old. "I wanted to get the message out that life is important. It doesn't matter what your circumstances are."

Whitte was among thousands of abortion opponents who rallied across the nation over the weekend, many of whom said they were heartened by Bush's choice of Alito.

The nation's high court made abortion legal on January 22, 1973. Thirty-four states have since passed laws requiring parents either to be notified or to give consent when their underage daughters seek abortions.

In Idaho, nearly 400 abortion protesters marched Saturday at the Statehouse, including Reid Richardson and his 5-year-old stepdaughter, Allie Zebley, who carried sign with her ultrasound photo and the words, "This is me at 16 weeks."

About half that number gathered Sunday outside the Idaho Capitol in support of abortion rights.

In Michigan, a group of ministry leaders launched a new anti-abortion organization, Michigan Chooses Life. The group wants to change the state constitution to legally define a person as existing at the moment of conception. The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has said such a measure would be challenged in court.

While this a$$hat was Gov.......he signed off on 152 lives. How can he make the statement that all life has value and that the strong have to protect the weak.

If he were really concerned about this, he would toss his abstinence-only programs into the Potomic and start over with a comprehensive sex ed class that covers everything from abstinence to emergency contraceptive pills that he "recommends" that the FDA make available tomorrow nationwide.

However, this won't happen because he is only paying lipservice to the sheep that he needs to continue to vote for his party based on the blind faith that they represent what these people believe is needed to morally exist as a country.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,585
126
Remember, Bush is a Texan. The ONLY time he doesn't want to kill people is before they're actually alive!
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
The argument pro-abortion people make when a pro-lifer supports the death penalty lacks logic.

The first being people on death row have been convicted of a crime that landed them on death row. A child within a mother has comitted no crime except being concieved.

 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
The argument pro-abortion people make when a pro-lifer supports the death penalty lacks logic.

The first being people on death row have been convicted of a crime that landed them on death row. A child within a mother has comitted no crime except being concieved.

Of course it's not a child until it can survive on it's own.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
The argument pro-abortion people make when a pro-lifer supports the death penalty lacks logic.

The first being people on death row have been convicted of a crime that landed them on death row. A child within a mother has comitted no crime except being concieved.

How does it lack logic?

Is it not hypocritical to say that "ALL LIFE HAS VALUE" and then sign off on 152 lives?! Has there been one single person that has been wrongly convicted of a crime? Is there absolutely zero chance of any of these people being rehabilitated and becoming productive parts of society again?

What lacks logic is saying that "all life has value" while denying those lives necessary funding or resources to help them from the slums that they are inevitably going to be raised in.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Another abortion thread... *cringe*
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Genx87
The argument pro-abortion people make when a pro-lifer supports the death penalty lacks logic.

The first being people on death row have been convicted of a crime that landed them on death row. A child within a mother has comitted no crime except being concieved.

Of course it's not a child until it can survive on it's own.

Then by your logic we should be able to kill new-borns too since they can't survive on their own either.


As to what Bush said... And I suppose all the other pro-life people out there... They are protecting innocent life. Murderers on death row have forfeited their right to life.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Another abortion thread... *cringe*
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Genx87
The argument pro-abortion people make when a pro-lifer supports the death penalty lacks logic.

The first being people on death row have been convicted of a crime that landed them on death row. A child within a mother has comitted no crime except being concieved.

Of course it's not a child until it can survive on it's own.

Then by your logic we should be able to kill new-borns too since they can't survive on their own either.


As to what Bush said... And I suppose all the other pro-life people out there... They are protecting innocent life. Murderers on death row have forfeited their right to life.

Until we are living in a "Minorty Report" world, there is no way of claiming with absolute certainty that all newborns are going to live innocent lives just as there is no way of declaring with absolute certainty that all death row inmates are guilty as charged.

/right-wing circular logic mode
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

While this a$$hat was Gov.......he signed off on 152 lives. How can he make the statement that all life has value and that the strong have to protect the weak.


Actually that not correct - he didn't 'sign-off' on a single one. All of them were reviewed by Alberto R. Gonzales
(Todays Attourny General) and they were in fact 'Rubber Stamped' by him in the power of attourny acting for the Governor.

RubberStamp Man (original from Salon)

<CLIP>

In the end, few senators wanted to sully the Gonzales love-in just because the sworn testimony of the soon-to-be rubber-stamped head of the nation's chief law enforcement agency was not entirely responsive. But if Gonzales was lacking in candor on the subject of torture, the main thrust of the hearing, he almost certainly crossed the line from half-truth to untruth when it came to a discussion of his role in the execution of 57 Texas death row inmates.

In response to questions from Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold and Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, Gonzales repeatedly stated that each of the so-called execution memos he wrote for then Texas Gov. George W. Bush was nothing more than a "summary" of what he suggested had been an elaborate, ongoing review process for each and every execution Bush approved. "It was not unusual - in fact, it was quite common that I would have numerous discussions with the governor well in advance of a scheduled execution," Gonzales told Feingold. "There would be a rolling series of discussions in connection with every execution."

This explanation of how executions were reviewed is essential to Gonzales' defense of his record because the documentary evidence is so damning. What it shows is that the only reports Bush reviewed were Gonzales' three-to-seven-page summaries, which not only were heavily biased against clemency but repeatedly failed to make any mention of the most powerful claims on a defendant's behalf, including plausible claims of innocence. Rather than writing a balanced summation of arguments for and against commutation, Gonzales' work product was frequently little more than a brief for execution.

More from the Washington Post

<Clip>

Bush approved 152 executions during his six years as governor. For each of the first 57, he made his judgment based on a three- to seven-page "execution summary" prepared by Gonzales and on an oral briefing that typically lasted no more than 30 minutes that the chief counsel usually presented on the day of the execution. In nearly all these cases, Gonzales was the only person standing between the executioner and a governor who made it abundantly clear he had little or no interest in granting clemency.

Where some might view this as a terrifying and formidable responsibility, Gonzales's "confidential" memos suggest that he saw his role as more of an expediter of his boss's preordained conclusion. Far from presenting an evenhanded or nuanced discussion of the case for and against clemency, Gonzales's execution summaries display a consistent prosecutorial bias. Not once does he attach a clemency petition in which the condemned put forward his or her best case for a reprieve. And Gonzales's summaries repeatedly play down or fail to report the most important issues at hand: claims of ineffective counsel, conflicts of interest, mitigating evidence, evidence never presented to a jury, even evidence of innocence. Not surprisingly, a disinterested observer relying solely on Gonzales's memos would probably do exactly what Bush did: deny clemency in every single case.

 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Genx87
The argument pro-abortion people make when a pro-lifer supports the death penalty lacks logic.

The first being people on death row have been convicted of a crime that landed them on death row. A child within a mother has comitted no crime except being concieved.

Of course it's not a child until it can survive on it's own.

So about age 12 or 13? I can promise you that my healthy 17 month old son could not survive on his own. How would you classify him, since he's not a child since he cannot survive on his own?
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Genx87
The argument pro-abortion people make when a pro-lifer supports the death penalty lacks logic.

The first being people on death row have been convicted of a crime that landed them on death row. A child within a mother has comitted no crime except being concieved.

Of course it's not a child until it can survive on it's own.

So about age 12 or 13? I can promise you that my healthy 17 month old son could not survive on his own. How would you classify him, since he's not a child since he cannot survive on his own?

Why are you acting like such an a$$? You know perfectly well what is meant by "survive on it's own" yet you keep trying to act as ignorant to common patterns of speach as Bush is to...well, common patterns of speach.

I have read enough of your replies to know that you are an intelligent person. Please don't insult the rest of us by pretending to act stupid to continue to skew the argument.
 

Meuge

Banned
Nov 27, 2005
2,963
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Genx87
The argument pro-abortion people make when a pro-lifer supports the death penalty lacks logic.

The first being people on death row have been convicted of a crime that landed them on death row. A child within a mother has comitted no crime except being concieved.

Of course it's not a child until it can survive on it's own.

So about age 12 or 13? I can promise you that my healthy 17 month old son could not survive on his own. How would you classify him, since he's not a child since he cannot survive on his own?

Why are you acting like such an a$$? You know perfectly well what is meant by "survive on it's own" yet you keep trying to act as ignorant to common patterns of speach as Bush is to...well, common patterns of speach.

I have read enough of your replies to know that you are an intelligent person. Please don't insult the rest of us by pretending to act stupid to continue to skew the argument.

Just use the words "breathe on its own", as opposed to "survive" and they can't challenge you.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
The argument pro-abortion people make when a pro-lifer supports the death penalty lacks logic.

The first being people on death row have been convicted of a crime that landed them on death row. A child within a mother has comitted no crime except being concieved.

Hey, you should read this: DNA frees man after 24 years in prison

TAMPA, Florida (AP) -- Alan Crotzer stepped into the warm sunlight outside the courthouse Monday and raised his arms to the sky, celebrating his freedom after more than 24 years behind bars for crimes he didn't commit.

Want to fathom a guess at how many innocent people have been executed by the State of Texas or in this country? It gives me the chills to think it's even just one.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
While this a$$hat was Gov.......he signed off on 152 lives. How can he make the statement that all life has value and that the strong have to protect the weak.
Hells yeah, and that's just a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis that were killed during OIF. What about them? Perhaps Bush should have added a qualifier on that statement that would address his "value" of the lives of brown-skinned foreigners.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

While this a$$hat was Gov.......he signed off on 152 lives. How can he make the statement that all life has value and that the strong have to protect the weak.

You weren't paying attention were you?, not one case was offered up to him through the appeals process while he was governor.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Genx87
The argument pro-abortion people make when a pro-lifer supports the death penalty lacks logic.

The first being people on death row have been convicted of a crime that landed them on death row. A child within a mother has comitted no crime except being concieved.

Of course it's not a child until it can survive on it's own.

That can apply to children upto their teens, or elderly who require assistence.

Is this going to be our new litmus test for determining if we should abort a human life or not?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Genx87
The argument pro-abortion people make when a pro-lifer supports the death penalty lacks logic.

The first being people on death row have been convicted of a crime that landed them on death row. A child within a mother has comitted no crime except being concieved.

How does it lack logic?

Is it not hypocritical to say that "ALL LIFE HAS VALUE" and then sign off on 152 lives?! Has there been one single person that has been wrongly convicted of a crime? Is there absolutely zero chance of any of these people being rehabilitated and becoming productive parts of society again?

What lacks logic is saying that "all life has value" while denying those lives necessary funding or resources to help them from the slums that they are inevitably going to be raised in.

Not really, the guy on death rows life didnt have enough "value" to keep alive.

btw in case you didnt know, I am not a supporter of capital punishment. But that doesnt stop me from debating the sillyness of comparing a death row inmate and an unborn child as one in the same.


 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Another abortion thread... *cringe*
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Genx87
The argument pro-abortion people make when a pro-lifer supports the death penalty lacks logic.

The first being people on death row have been convicted of a crime that landed them on death row. A child within a mother has comitted no crime except being concieved.

Of course it's not a child until it can survive on it's own.

Then by your logic we should be able to kill new-borns too since they can't survive on their own either.


As to what Bush said... And I suppose all the other pro-life people out there... They are protecting innocent life. Murderers on death row have forfeited their right to life.

Until we are living in a "Minorty Report" world, there is no way of claiming with absolute certainty that all newborns are going to live innocent lives just as there is no way of declaring with absolute certainty that all death row inmates are guilty as charged.

/right-wing circular logic mode


Uh are we now using the logic of guilty before proven innocent? This thread is getting better by the minute. Condemed before you are even born, amazing insight in your mind.


 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Genx87
The argument pro-abortion people make when a pro-lifer supports the death penalty lacks logic.

The first being people on death row have been convicted of a crime that landed them on death row. A child within a mother has comitted no crime except being concieved.

How does it lack logic?

Is it not hypocritical to say that "ALL LIFE HAS VALUE" and then sign off on 152 lives?! Has there been one single person that has been wrongly convicted of a crime? Is there absolutely zero chance of any of these people being rehabilitated and becoming productive parts of society again?

What lacks logic is saying that "all life has value" while denying those lives necessary funding or resources to help them from the slums that they are inevitably going to be raised in.

No, it's no hypocritical at all. What's hypocritical is being for abortion and against the death penalty (I'm for both).
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Genx87
The argument pro-abortion people make when a pro-lifer supports the death penalty lacks logic.

The first being people on death row have been convicted of a crime that landed them on death row. A child within a mother has comitted no crime except being concieved.

How does it lack logic?

Is it not hypocritical to say that "ALL LIFE HAS VALUE" and then sign off on 152 lives?! Has there been one single person that has been wrongly convicted of a crime? Is there absolutely zero chance of any of these people being rehabilitated and becoming productive parts of society again?

What lacks logic is saying that "all life has value" while denying those lives necessary funding or resources to help them from the slums that they are inevitably going to be raised in.

No, it's no hypocritical at all. What's hypocritical is being for abortion and against the death penalty (I'm for both).
And do you enjoy trying to force your PERSONAL morality on others?

 

CSMR

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2004
1,376
2
81
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
While this a$$hat was Gov.......he signed off on 152 lives. How can he make the statement that all life has value and that the strong have to protect the weak.
I completely disagree with what Bush said in that sentence (because I am against the philosophy upheld by the declaration of independence) but on this point he is being quite consistent, firstly because the death penalty puts out some lives but may be of benefit to others, and secondly because protecting the weak does not require protecting murderers (the opposite in fact is true).
If he were really concerned about this, he would toss his abstinence-only programs into the Potomic and start over with a comprehensive sex ed class that covers everything from abstinence to emergency contraceptive pills that he "recommends" that the FDA make available tomorrow nationwide.
Some people on AT seem to be having difficulties with the idea that one can be concerned about more than one thing.
What arguments shall we be seeing next?
If Bush were really concerned with catching Bin Laden, he would draft the whole of the US population to go to the middle east to find him.
If Bush were really concerned about lives he would tear up all roads.
If Bush were really concerned about security he would blockade ports and airports and not allow anyone to enter the US.
However, this won't happen because he is only paying lipservice to the sheep that he needs to continue to vote for his party based on the blind faith that they represent what these people believe is needed to morally exist as a country.
You are trying very hard to make an insult but you have not even succeeded in putting together a working sentence.
You should think more before you speak is my opinion.