106,400 and counting...

All that you have claimed minus volunteering or contributing to pregnancy centers. And you're right, that ain't much for your continous whining over the President.

 

Well not quite all... or am I wrong in assuming you voted for a president who favors abortion with some exceptions, and just nominated a pro-abortion judge for AG?

If you didn't vote for Bush, my apologies.

 

Galatian, You have always been a great apologist for Clinton... what did he do for the unborn? Did he favor any limitations on abortion? Did he pass or veto PBA legislation?

Of course, if you didn't vote for or support Clinton, my apologies.

 

I don't believe this is true at all. Most Americans couldn't even describe in generalities what this decision involved or how it was arrived at. According to the polls, something like 60% think Roe v Wade should not be overturned yet a greater percentage think that judges should rule on law rather than making law.

I believe that pro-lifers should and to some extent have focused on defining when life begins. This will necessitate that Roe v Wade be revisited at some point.

The pro-life movement has to be the worst PR campaign in history. It holds all of the trump cards and never plays them. Why not public service commercials that show a color display of a 12 week old fetus? Why not explain that most abortions kill an unborn that meets all of the legal requirements for being "alive" except that they happen to be in a womb?

Instead of educating people, they go out and protest clinics opening themselves up to being marginalized by the media. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, to quote PA Jim:

I still maintain that, if the GOP were going to overturn Roe v. Wade, it would have already been done.

 

Then go back and read my last reply.

 

If Peroutka had won, that number would've been EXACTLY the same.

 

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The difference between Bush and Peroutka as I see it is this. Peroutka would be accountable to those that elected him as President and Bush is not. Bush has an open ticket to do as he wishes with blind constituancy backing him. So "Bingo" all you want.
Thanks -----Bart

 

didn't they pass a bill which recognized the unborn is a person ? that bill now enables anybody killing an unborn to be prosecuted for murder, doens't it?

Corinne

 

As if Peroutka ever had ANY chance, in the real world, of winning a single electoral vote!!!!!

Corinne

 

Well, republican politicians do have to lure christians one way or another and they found two good battle horses to get votes from you: abortion and homosexuality.

The day a majority of evangelican christians realizes that this is nothing but a political ploy, and that in reality, they do very little (other than celebrate the fact that they have been clever enough to get your vote) - because they can do little, in fact (reversing Roe v Wade is for example unrealistic today and will only create trouble if the Supreme Court was stupid enough to force society into women's rights regression, were Bush to nominate two or more conservatives there).

It is a bit like gun rights. People think that when wanting to ban assault weapons, for example, the government is threatening your Second Amendment rights. But you do not need a 40-round gun with Eagle-claw bullets to hunt deers or even defend yourself in your own home. Despite the fact that gun ownership rights are NOT in danger under a democratic government, that is what the republicans want to believe (especially the NRA). This is MISLEADING people!

In the same way, they are trying to make you believe that by voting for them, they will abolish abortion or even restrict abortion. Abortion is a human problem, a society problem, and giving it a political label is not right. You could outlaw abortion, it would not mean it would disappear. So what exactly are the politicians trying to buy your vote under pro-life cover trying to sell you?

Women's rights are here to stay, they cannot go back to where they came from, like it or not.

Corinne

 

Absolutely. And if the education system was better funded, and parental responsibility was something that was supervised, maybe we'd get somewhere. Parents are the key. Unfortunately lots of kids are born in houses where parents abuse them, do not look well after them, etc... These kids do not start well in life and that is a shame, a scandal. People who have kids should be able to raise these kids to an acceptable standard: provide them with food, clothes, schooling, morals and love. This is not achieved in a lot of families. Once kids raised in such families are teenagers, they tend to do mischief or get in trouble. Kids with good education are less likely to put their lives in jeopardy because they understand the consequences of their acts and have parents sho have given them good basics as well as morals.

Parental responsibility is where we need to start. Then, teenagers who become pregnant have to be taken care of. It may be too late for them but it is not too late for their unborn child. That is where you can break the vicious circle.

Outlaw abortion and for a lot of teenagers, that will mean going to unscrupulous doctors to have unsafe abortions. It will not stop those who want one to have one.

And I seem to recall that George Bush himself, when he was young and it did not suit his career plans, asked his girlfriend at the time to get an abortion. She did. It was in the media, but I don't think many evangelical christians who voted Bush for his moral values - including on his sanctity of life stance - ever knew about it. This illustrates the hypocrisy of the republican politicians who are quite happy to require a pro life vote from christians but are also quite unscrupulously happy about having abortions performed on people close to them if this is going to harm their career. Do what I say but don't do what I do...

Corinne

 

Fine, but in a lot of families where abuse of children - including sexual abuse - is going on, or where parents show promiscuity themselves and therefore do not set a good examples, how are the kids/teenagers supposed to remain chaste and be responsible if such values have not been taught to them in their own homes? By what will power?

What is a girl supposed to do if her father makes her pregnant? What about incest?

And what about rape? You can be a virgin, if a man rapes a girl and she becomes pregnant, what do you suggest? These women is entitled to not wanting the babies. They were not responsible for the pregnancies, the men were. In those cases, I believe abortion is socially acceptable, especially if the woman is not a christian.

We cannot as Christians impose babies on raped or abused women.

Corinne

 

No, because it is not a political problem that can be solved politically.

It is not a Bush problem, and it is not by electing a democratic president that the problem is going to get worse (or better), at least not until one government decides that parents are responsible for their children's education (including sexual) and should be held accountable for how they raise their child.

Parental "schools" should be mandatory. Parenting comes naturally to most of us (who do not get into much trouble) but it does not to a chunk of the population (the chunk who regularly gets into trouble).

Corinne