Bush at Pro-Life Rally

  • Thread starter Thread starter jlw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TPJCatholic, while I admire your enthusiasm, I think that this will be a war of attrition. It’s one thing to want to change the culture that two generations have been born into, quite another to actually do it. We need to pick our battles and win them, changing the hearts and minds of the people along the way. If we were to overturn Roe vs. Wade would that end abortion? No. Is it a very important step? Hell yes it is. But it will be won through judicial appointments.

I understand your frustration, but slow and steady, brother, slow and steady.
 
Lisa and Trelow,

Thank you for your replies. I understand where each of you are coming from, and normally I am an advocate of slow and steady and of calm approaches. However, the dems are not stupid people, they know that people of faith had a huge impact on this last election. Even Hillary Clinton is now intentionally speaking about faith, and she recently softened her rhetoric about abortion–calling it a sometimes sad and tragic event for many women (she is preparing her foundation ofr a 08 run for the Presidency).

The dems know the game, they know how Bush won and they will make changes in order to win next time. The problem is, the dems don’t mean what they say, and yet unfortunately we have a large amount of gullible voters in this country…the dems will win over quite a few voters with their new softer and gentler approach to abortion (even though they are still rabid baby killers). Remember that Bush was a loss in Ohio away from losing…not exactly firm ground to stand on.

This morning I was listening to Laura Ingram’s radio show and she felt the same as I do, she was at a loss as to how to explain why the President would not show-up at the march…she even brought-up the sound point that Bush has no more elections to win, so he really has nothing to lose by attending the rally, and she went on to drive home the point that sometimes politicians need to take a stand for all to see. Later in her show she had Larry Kudlow on, and he essentially agreed with her point of view. That’s two well known conservative Catholics who agreed with my point of view…not even to mention the great speech that Justice Scalia gave about this issue.

My fear, and the main reason for my posts here, is that I am seeing a great deal of comfort among conservatives and Christians, as if getting Bush re-elected is enough. Yet, I feel
now is the time to shout the loudest, because I think our politicians need to know that we will punish them at the polls if they do not carry through with their promises.

Larry Kudlow did make one valid, and disturbing point about Bush, he stated that he has never heard Bush even remotely hint that he wanted to end Roe V. Wade…I thought about that and Kudlow is right, President Bush has never said that he wanted to end all abortions…it is hard to know if his heart is really in this fight, especially since he would not even show-up to a no-risk march.

The other disturbing thing is Bush and his admin new that the partial birth abortion ban legislation was weak, they knew it would not pass the test of the judiciary because there was no exception of anykind for the health/life of the woman…yet they pushed the bill through because it helped to appease people like me. They did a great job of appearing strongly pro-life, yet time will tell if they really are.

I am still a strong supporter of President Bush (there really is no other alternative at this time), and in a general sense think that he is the right person and the right time…and I still hold great hope that he will appoint some great judges. Judicial appointments are the most critical task Bush has and the senate needs to get ready for the nuclear option.

Time will tell–but it cannot hurt for all of us to send letters to everyone we can–Senators, Representatives and the White House…they are politicians, they do care when an issue may mean their downfall.
 
The reason that they had no exception for the life/health of the mother is because there is no conceivable reason to kill a baby while you are delivering it.

I agree we need to step up, but more so in our influence on our culture, call and write our media outlets and let them know were aren’t going to take this continual degeneration of morality in our county. Fight sex education in schools. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

Keep the pressure on our congressmen, but concentrate efforts on our children.
 
Trelow,

I agree–there is no medical reason to have a partial birth abortion and that is why they did not put it in the bill. However, since Bush knew that, then he also knew signing the bill was merely a symbolic act…symbolism is nice, but it does not save lives. My point all along is that Bush has done many symbolic acts, yet nothing with actual teeth. And, if Bush was into symbolism so much, then why not show-up at the march? Perhaps it is because he is not quite as pro-life as we hope. Again, time will tell what he does with judicial appoinments…he has not been much of a soldier for life though.

I agree, we must continue to convert the culture…that should be a non-stop work for all true Christians.
 
Posted by TPJCatholic: Larry Kudlow did make one valid, and disturbing point about Bush, he stated that he has never heard Bush even remotely hint that he wanted to end Roe V. Wade…I thought about that and Kudlow is right, President Bush has never said that he wanted to end all abortions…it is hard to know if his heart is really in this fight, especially since he would not even show-up to a no-risk march.
Click to expand...
He can’t say that. Remember in the first debate, when Bush looked horrible in responding to Kerry’s rediculous platitudes and charges?? Sure, some of it could be chalked up to him being a less than competant debater, but really, he could have kicked Kerry’s behind with the truth of the matter, but to what end?? He would have trashed France and Germany, he would have put lives of troops in further jepoardy, he could have nailed Kerry on his lies about his own service, but, as a sitting president, saying such things… it would not have served anyone. He had to be strategic, not overplay his hand, not fumble, so he hesitated, chose his words carefully, and well, it didn’t look good, it hurt him, but he didn’t say anything that would have created a media frenzy–a media that was looking to kill his presidency.

Is there a danger in “playing not to lose”. ABSOLUTELY. And I think that is what TPJ is mad about. He has a point.

On the other hand, winning anything takes skill, power, and touch. I am of the viewpoint that Bush is smart enough to not show his hand. Saying he wants to end Roe v Wade is like telling your poker table you have three aces before everyone bets!! He goes against the grain when it serves him, and he lulls his opponents to sleep at the right time too. The fight is in the distance, and the last thing he needs to do is awaken the crazies too soon so they can mobilize ahead of time.

BTW, good exchanges TPJ, Lisa N, and Trelow.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Trelow,

I agree–there is no medical reason to have a partial birth abortion and that is why they did not put it in the bill. However, since Bush knew that, then he also knew signing the bill was merely a symbolic act…symbolism is nice, but it does not save lives. My point all along is that Bush has done many symbolic acts, yet nothing with actual teeth. And, if Bush was into symbolism so much, then why not show-up at the march? Perhaps it is because he is not quite as pro-life as we hope. Again, time will tell what he does with judicial appoinments…he has not been much of a soldier for life though.

I agree, we must continue to convert the culture…that should be a non-stop work for all true Christians.
Click to expand...
Sure , the legislation wasn’t airtight, and that was CONGRESS that screwed up.

Anyway, the point is that ANY competant judge should be able to see the lunacy of PBA and see that the ban is just!!! But…nooooo.

All it takes is left-wing activists on the bench to undo common sense.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Perhaps it is because he is not quite as pro-life as we hope. Again, time will tell what he does with judicial appoinments…he has not been much of a soldier for life though.
.
Click to expand...
Nobody could be as pro-life as we hope and win in the state of our country today.

As much as I like the guy, W ain’t the end-all-be-all for life. Nobody could sensibly think so. But he’s a step in the right direction.

Death by a thousand cuts.
 
jlw,

I am a President Bush supporter, I am not a President Bush apologist. If the man is doing something wrong, or is truly weak in an important area, then it is our right and duty to call him on those issues. He is the man who signed the PBA bill into law, and when he signed it he knew it would not pass the judiciary–yet he signed it anyway because he knew it would get him points with the pro-life crowd. It was mere symbolism, nothing more.

We are in complete agreement about judges…the activist judges are deeply harming this nation. However, Bush and his team are well aware of that (more so then we are), and yet they still signed the PBA bill. Now, imo, a true pro-lifer would have created a firestorm of pressure to try to prevent the judges from ruling against that bill–he could have used his bully pulpit…yet for political reasons (he was seeking re-election), he chose not to speak out for the unborn in that case. Do not forget, judges can be impeached, and Bush could have pursued that with the American citizenry…we are talking lives here. Try to picture how aggresive Bush (or any President) would be if there was a mass murderer killing 4,000 born babies a day in the United States…try to picture the support he would get to hunt down that person or persons…it would make the war on terror look like playground warmups. Yet, that is precisely what we have going on in this country, we have morally bankrupt abortionists (they do not deserve the term doctor) murdering babies at the level of 4,000 per day and the majority of people look the other way…would that happen if they were born babies? No of course not.

I feel the this president is likely to go down in history as a great president…but not for his moves regarding life, rather for his steadffast resolve regarding the war on terror. Someone had to finally push back against terrorism, and Bush has done that with authentic courage and steadfast resolve…he has done that without any regard to the political hits he has/will take. Yet, somehow the unborn does not warrant the same level of steadfast resolve–that deeply concerns me and makes me wonder how pro-life Bush is. Personally, I see all talk, and no real action regarding life and it was (imo) cowardly not to show-up at that march. Bush was willing to fly into the lion’s den to see the soldier in Iraq, but he would not speak at a peaceful rally for life…it amazes me and I think it says a great deak about where Bush’ mind is about life.

I will continue to support Bush, mainly because I think in many ways he is doing a fantastic job, and also because I just plain like the guy. Yet, so far he is an utter disappointment in terms of advancing the cause of life. I truly pray that one day soon I will eat my words…nothing would make me more happy then to be wrong about Bush regarding life.

The march is over, the opportunity has passed…let us all hope and pray that when given the chance, Bush steps-up for life in a very real way–no more symbolism, let’s try some real courage and action for a change.
 
40.png
Trelow:
The reason that they had no exception for the life/health of the mother is because there is no conceivable reason to kill a baby while you are delivering it.

I agree we need to step up, but more so in our influence on our culture, call and write our media outlets and let them know were aren’t going to take this continual degeneration of morality in our county. Fight sex education in schools. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

Keep the pressure on our congressmen, but concentrate efforts on our children.
Click to expand...
First there IS a LIFE OF THE MOTHER exception. I have read the bill carefully. It’s there. OTOH there is no ‘health of the mother’ exception and that is what the courts are using to overturn the legislation. They claim Roe and Doe (I think the latter more specifically) REQUIRE a health of the mother exception. However there is NEVER a ‘health of the mother’ reason for PBA and there was extensive testimony to that effect. The reason ‘health’ of the mother was omitted is that the ban would be totally ineffective with such an exception because “health” has been defined SOOOOOO broadly. “Economic” health is considered a ‘health of the mother’ exception. So they knew the bill would not have any teeth if they left that in.

The ban has not been totally overturned, it is wending its way through the courts and this testimony will come out. It might provide an opening to turn back the tide.

Lisa N
 
From TJPCatholic: Larry Kudlow did make one valid, and disturbing point about Bush, he stated that he has never heard Bush even remotely hint that he wanted to end Roe V. Wade…I thought about that and Kudlow is right, President Bush has never said that he wanted to end all abortions…it is hard to know if his heart is really in this fight, especially since he would not even show-up to a no-risk march.>>>

FWIW I do not think the overturning of Roe is the objective. It would not stop abortion, it would simply return to the prior situation where some states (including mine) allowed abortion and others did not. The states that allowed abortion became a mecca for the abortion providers and also drew women across state lines.

Interestingly I read an article in Atlantic Monthly where a staunch proabort liberal claimed HE hoped Roe would be overturned. He claimed (and I agree) that because this rule was court driven, not legislation driven, it has never been considered legitimate. It provides fuel for the prolife fire…and he is right. He claims that if Roe were overturned that the issue would go back to the states to decide and as we know there are certain states that would undoubtedly allow unfettered access to abortion, while others might restrict abortion or ban certain procedures such as PBA.

So I can’t get too wrapped around the axle about Bush’s lack of interest in overturning Roe. What I think we need is LEGISLATION that determines life to begin at conception and that would put unborn babies under the equal protection provisions. Trying to ban a procedure is much more piecemeal than legislating specific rights.

Lisa N
 
Lisa,

I agree…reversing Roe V. Wade would not end abortions immediately. Yet, it would send it back to the the states, and many states would enact bans. That would a truly major first step. Liberal states would not enact bans, yet overtime pressure would come to bear upon them.

The bst of all solutions is an amendment…
 
Lisa N:
First there IS a LIFE OF THE MOTHER exception. I have read the bill carefully. It’s there. OTOH there is no ‘health of the mother’ exception and that is what the courts are using to overturn the legislation. They claim Roe and Doe (I think the latter more specifically) REQUIRE a health of the mother exception. However there is NEVER a ‘health of the mother’ reason for PBA and there was extensive testimony to that effect. The reason ‘health’ of the mother was omitted is that the ban would be totally ineffective with such an exception because “health” has been defined SOOOOOO broadly. “Economic” health is considered a ‘health of the mother’ exception. So they knew the bill would not have any teeth if they left that in.

The ban has not been totally overturned, it is wending its way through the courts and this testimony will come out. It might provide an opening to turn back the tide.

Lisa N
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing that out. My mistake.
 
Is Bush really Pro-Life? If so, why did he campaign for Arlen Specter, an openly Pro-Choice Republican who was in line to be (an now is) the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee?! In the primary election, he was running for the Republican nomination against Pat Toomey, who is very Pro-Life. Why would Bush support a Pro-Abortion candidate (whom he knew would play an important role in getting justices to the federal courts approved) against a Pro-Life candidate?
 
40.png
atsheeran:
Is Bush really Pro-Life? If so, why did he campaign for Arlen Specter, an openly Pro-Choice Republican who was in line to be (an now is) the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee?! In the primary election, he was running for the Republican nomination against Pat Toomey, who is very Pro-Life. Why would Bush support a Pro-Abortion candidate (whom he knew would play an important role in getting justices to the federal courts approved) against a Pro-Life candidate?
Click to expand...
FWIW this issue has been discussed on several previous threads. You might want to check those out for possible answers.

Lisa N
 
40.png
atsheeran:
Is Bush really Pro-Life? If so, why did he campaign for Arlen Specter, an openly Pro-Choice Republican who was in line to be (an now is) the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee?! In the primary election, he was running for the Republican nomination against Pat Toomey, who is very Pro-Life. Why would Bush support a Pro-Abortion candidate (whom he knew would play an important role in getting justices to the federal courts approved) against a Pro-Life candidate?
Click to expand...
All worthy questions. Answer:

Politics. Majorities matter in politics. Toomy is a better man, but not the better candidate. That said, Santorum had better win in 2006. And Bush had better help him, given what Santorum did to get Spector elected.
 
There’s a HUGE difference in being a Bush supporter (which I am NOT btw) and a Bush apologist… and it is quite clear that too many “catholics” on this forum are APOLOGIZING Bush MORE than I see them in the APOLOGETICS Forum doing the same for their FAITH.

The willing delusion that Catholics here will go to in order to defend this man as to why he couldnt or didnt attend…along with his nominations…the war we were lied into…the lack of WMDs…mor lies, etc… its nothing short of sinful PRIDE to keep defending him on issues that deserve NO defense… why cant people simply admit when someone they like or support is wrong? It doesnt diminsh you…actually it makes one MORE intelligent to admit mistakes… Blows my mind…putting someone who holds a secular office above the Pope himself on issues of war as well as their own Faith.
 
Faithful2Rome,

If you read my messages you will see that I have been saying similar things about Bush…I do support him, but I am not an apologist and there is plenty of reason for having concern about him being pro-life.

As for you comment that Bush lied to us, I strongly disagree. The man went with the best intel he had, and every major body in the world agreed with that intel…he did not lie. It turns out the intel appears to have been flat wrong…but Bush had not way to know that two years ago.
 
Faithful 2 Rome:
There’s a HUGE difference in being a Bush supporter (which I am NOT btw) and a Bush apologist… and it is quite clear that too many “catholics” on this forum are APOLOGIZING Bush MORE than I see them in the APOLOGETICS Forum doing the same for their FAITH.

The willing delusion that Catholics here will go to in order to defend this man as to why he couldnt or didnt attend…along with his nominations…the war we were lied into…the lack of WMDs…mor lies, etc… its nothing short of sinful PRIDE to keep defending him on issues that deserve NO defense… why cant people simply admit when someone they like or support is wrong? It doesnt diminsh you…actually it makes one MORE intelligent to admit mistakes… Blows my mind…
Click to expand...
I am one of those. I support ( and apologise for , I guess) Bush for political reasons on order to advance my theological reasons (an aside: not the other way around, as most secular liberals mistakenly scream).

As to the war, Saddam lied to everyone. EVERYONE thought he had WMDs, EVEN opponents to an invasion. Bush looked at the intel (flawed) provided by EVERYONE (even the UN) and instead of taking Saddams word again, we called his bluff. Was he bluffing, we don’t know, we don’t know if he destroyed them or hid them, but…none were found. But the Duelfur Report certainly said he wasn’t on the level about his plans post-sanctions.

You aren’t prideful??? You would never admit you might be wrong???

As to putting my president above the Pope?? In regards to the national security of our nation?? Yes.

In regards to faith and morals from the Chair of Peter?? NEVER.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top