Pres. Bush Approves Over the Counter Early Abortion Pill, Pro-Life Base Decries Move

[Hastrman]

Out of curiosity, what is the cause of this barbarous idiocy, and this belief I find everywhere that the President is the only member of the Federal government?

It was the FDA director, admittedly a Bush appointee, who approved the RU486. Bush had nothing to do with it, except approving said person.

People are only culpable for things they actually do. And yes, Bush should have considered things like this, but, like so many, you make the classic bungle of assuming everyone thinks of things in your terms. Now, when the average person, not engaged in this struggle from morning till night, thinks of the qualifications of an FDA head, he doesn’t think in terms of abortion, because to the average person, abortion is a surgery, not something that can be done with a drug. He probably apointed this FDA head because said goon was knowledgeable about pharmacy, and not likely to take bribes.

 

[Jasny]

The choice of Republican or Demicrate is farce. Pro-lifers have been working to change things with the republican party for years but to no real progress. The anti-slave movement had the same problem in Abraham Lincon’s time. They are intrenched in the Global Game. From what I read there are some honest congress people but what is needed is a pro-life party to be a third party based on natural law.

 

[rlg94086]

Ugh! I would say “good luck on that” except that third parties don’t work and they only harm one of the other parties - usually the better of the two on the preferred hot-button issue of the third party.

The choice of Republican or Demicrate is farce. Pro-lifers have been working to change things with the republican party for years but to no real progress. The anti-slave movement had the same problem in Abraham Lincon’s time. They are intrenched in the Global Game. From what I read there are some honest congress people but what is needed is a pro-life party to be a third party based on natural law.

 

[Holly3278]

Same here . I was very disappointed to hear he approved Plan B. What was he thinking?

He was more than likely thinking that he’d score some points for the Republican party with the more liberal Republicans and Democrats or swing voters. I doubt if he cares much about what the conservative base thinks of him in particular since he is not up for reelection.

 

[Holly3278]

The choice of Republican or Demicrate is farce. Pro-lifers have been working to change things with the republican party for years but to no real progress. The anti-slave movement had the same problem in Abraham Lincon’s time. They are intrenched in the Global Game. From what I read there are some honest congress people but what is needed is a pro-life party to be a third party based on natural law.

Have you ever looked in to the Constitution Party? I am strongly considering voting for their candidates. The only problem is that when a person votes for a third party candidate, you’re probably going to lose either way because third party candidates rarely if ever win.

 

[Thekla]

blind obedience…

It is good to see your posts again, Thekla…

God bless,

Robert

Robert,

Thanks for the shout out. It’s nice to see you too.

Thekla

 

[Swiss_Guard]

George W. Bush is the grandson of liberal, country club northeastern Republican. He’s just showing his true colors by supporting Plan B.

Anyone who thought Bush was ever pro life was only fooling himself, and I count myself as one of those who fooled himself.

I voted for Bush in 2000 but did not vote for anyone in 2004 because the Constitution Party candidate was not on the ballot in Illinois.

The Republican Party is a less corrupt version of the Democratic Party, but it is still corrupt. Both parties could care less about moral issues. The only difference is the Republican Party gives lip service to pro life issues. However, it’s only lip service.

I agree with those who say we need a third party. Joseph Sobran said this years ago. We need a third party based on the natural law, Divine positive law, and true conservative principles, not the type of conservative principles espoused by Bush.

A third party won’t win right away, it might take years to establish, and we won’t see any political victories in our lifetime. Can we just stand by and watch the Republican Party sell our principles for votes? Can we continue to support a party that uses pro lifers the way the Democrats use racial and ethnic minorities?

Remember, we have to answer to God for everything we do. Do we *really *want to tell God we supported the lesser of evils? Evil is still evil and Christ makes it clear we have to be perfect just like our heavenly Father.

 

[Jasny]

Abraham Lincon won as a third party candidate I think the name of his wako parz was Republican but they never developed

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Pro-Life isn’t going to win on birth control, ever.

Then America is finished.

 

[rlg94086]

Abraham Lincon won as a third party candidate I think the name of his wako parz was Republican but they never developed

Technically, it wasn’t a third party, because the Whigs completely collapsed and went Republican. IOW…there wasn’t really three-way vote for President [edit - in fact it was sort of a four-way vote]. Now, if you think you can get enough people to your third party to cause the complete collapse of either the Dem or Rep parties, more power to ya.

 

[Jeffrey]

I meant for the life of me cannot think of any Pro-Life Catholics running for President. Theres Joe Schriner… and pretty sure he don’t stand a chance. And I’m dead set against what his immigration/military/energy policies would be… and the fact he wants to join/create a North American Union. But would vote for him based on his Pro-Life stance. Unless there was a more conservative Pro-Life candidate out running.

voteforjoe.com/

No disrespect taken, but you apparently don’t understand how our election system works. We can put anyone forward to run for a political primary.

You don’t know of any pro-life Catholics who are in politics?

I didn’t say it would be easy, nor did I say that any of current, expected the front runners are pro-life Catholics. Are you disagreeing that we should work toward putting a pro-life Catholic on the ticket?

You have me a little confused.

 

[Riley259]

I meant for the life of me cannot think of any Pro-Life Catholics running for President. Theres Joe Schriner… and pretty sure he don’t stand a chance. And I’m dead set against what his immigration/military/energy policies would be… and the fact he wants to join/create a North American Union. But would vote for him based on his Pro-Life stance. Unless there was a more conservative Pro-Life candidate out running.

voteforjoe.com/

How about Sam Brownback? Isn’t he a prolife Catholic? I could be wrong and I’m not sure if he’s thinking about running for President.

 

[rlg94086]

Understood. Is he running for one of the two major parties? If not, I wouldn’t waste my time with him. In the Republican party there have been a couple of serious Catholics - Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan. I can’t stand Buchanan and Mr. Keyes isn’t the best of candidates. It’s a tough problem.

Bottomline, I believe in working my buns off to get a good canidate elected in the primary, then I vote for the lesser of two evils for the final vote.

I meant for the life of me cannot think of any Pro-Life Catholics running for President. Theres Joe Schriner… and pretty sure he don’t stand a chance. And I’m dead set against what his immigration/military/energy policies would be… and the fact he wants to join/create a North American Union. But would vote for him based on his Pro-Life stance. Unless there was a more conservative Pro-Life candidate out running.

voteforjoe.com/

 

[Asking]

Is there an actual, factual difference between republicans and democrats on abortion?

Because what I see, is republicans say, I am against abortion, get the votes of those against abortion, but once in power nothing changes.
Maybe nothing changing is better because democrats would make abortion even easier to get? and make gay marriage legal?

 

[rlg94086]

The platforms are clearly different. The Democrats are for completely legal abortion in all cases. The Republicans believe that abortion is wrong and would like it to be limited or completely illegal.

Now, individual politicians vary - there are some Republicans who believe in exceptions (i.e. rape/incest) and some that don’t. There are also pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats.

The problem is that some strong pro-lifers (with no exceptions for rape/incest) have an all-or-nothing attitude. Since the pro-life politicians still don’t have a complete majority, they still can’t completely ban abortion. They have worked on limiting it. I pray they will continue and that the number of strong pro-lifers in Congress will increase.

Is there an actual, factual difference between republicans and democrats on abortion?

Because what I see, is republicans say, I am against abortion, get the votes of those against abortion, but once in power nothing changes.
Maybe nothing changing is better because democrats would make abortion even easier to get? and make gay marriage legal?

 

[Jasny]

Is there an actual, factual difference between republicans and democrats on abortion?

Because what I see, is republicans say, I am against abortion, get the votes of those against abortion, but once in power nothing changes.
Maybe nothing changing is better because democrats would make abortion even easier to get? and make gay marriage legal?

exactly