Bush to anti-abortion activists: We will prevail

#1
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...RTRUKOC_0_US-ABORTION-BUSH.xml&archived=False

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday told opponents of abortion their views would eventually prevail and urged them to work to convince more Americans of "the rightness of our cause."

On the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that established federal abortion rights, Bush addressed activists by telephone from Manhattan, Kansas, and called their goals noble.

"We, of course, seek common ground where possible," he said. "We're working to persuade more of our fellow Americans of the rightness of our cause, and this is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens and is rooted in America's deepest principles -- history tells us that with such a cause, we will prevail."

The rally was held to protest the 1973 decision, which opponents hope to overturn someday, especially now that Bush has named two justices to the Supreme Court -- John Roberts, who replaced the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Samuel Alito to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

O'Connor has often been the swing vote on abortion and other social issues on the nine-member court.
Well that's told 106.7 million American voters what the President thinks of their right to choose. When Shrub carries a Baby , he'll be qualified to comment.
 
#2
It's just empty rhetoric. Rove would shit his pants if Roe V wade were ever actually overturned. Right now abortion is a great carrot for the GOP to hold in front of the Religous right's mouth. If Roe v Wade were actually overturned the GOP would be in serious trouble with the female vote which is why they don't really want it to be overturned.
 
#3
PartTimePongo said:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-01-23T224548Z_01_N23382882_RTRUKOC_0_US-ABORTION-BUSH.xml&archived=False

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday told opponents of abortion their views would eventually prevail and urged them to work to convince more Americans of "the rightness of our cause."

On the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that established federal abortion rights, Bush addressed activists by telephone from Manhattan, Kansas, and called their goals noble.

"We, of course, seek common ground where possible," he said. "We're working to persuade more of our fellow Americans of the rightness of our cause, and this is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens and is rooted in America's deepest principles -- history tells us that with such a cause, we will prevail."

The rally was held to protest the 1973 decision, which opponents hope to overturn someday, especially now that Bush has named two justices to the Supreme Court -- John Roberts, who replaced the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Samuel Alito to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

O'Connor has often been the swing vote on abortion and other social issues on the nine-member court.
Well that's told 106.7 million American voters what the President thinks of their right to choose. When Shrub carries a Baby , he'll be qualified to comment.
If it does happen someday, he'll be found face down in an alleyway with a cabbage patch doll stuck halfway up his hoop. TomW is exactly right.

78% of registered Republican women are pro choice. However, even more than the votes they shore up among the base and the few he gains from the likes of Catholics who are otherwise pretty liberal in general, the GOP depends on the pro life movement because they are have ridiculously well organised political apparatus for canvassing etc. and contribute ridiculous sums of money.
 
#4
I would suspect that if he is now highlighting this issue he is considering a bill reducing the time limit in which an abortion can be sought rather than overturning Roe v Wade altogether. I am sure he is aware (or at least his more intelligent colleagues are) that a u-turn on this issue and a total ban would harm his career and the profile of his party.
 
#5
Dogface said:
It's absolutely amazing how Bush gets under some people's skin here regarding DOMESTIC politics and positions. I find reading it all quite entertaining.
Indeed. I suppose it's an expression of disbelief that our own Dear Leader could even contemplate supporting, in foreign matters, someone who demonstrates such lunacy in his own back yard.
 
#6
if bush could do it sure tony would try it he is almost a catholic already .The only good pro lifer is a dead one .Had one of those ******* arrested by the cops outside the hosptial I worked in florida .he was wrting down licence plates and was armed to the teeth .
Dont know what happened to him . If i get killed by the provos or the islamic nutters at least I know what theircause is .
But getting taken out by a pro life f uc k wit or a animal rights loony would really annoy me as their cause are completely barking.




On second thoughts a pro lifer who advocates violence should be killed .the rest can can go and join the taliban they will get on well.
 
#7
Well put Dogface. I hope you don't feel there's a double standard being applied by all posters; (just some!) considering you were being roasted recently about having the temerity to express your opinion on firearms control in UK.

VB, are you REALLY surprised by TCB's support of the shaved chimp? Like for like if you ask me - nutters will always congregate. Is Bush's "save the foetus" stance any more barking than, well, anything Blair has come up with in the last 8 years?
 
#8
And I agree with you DF. Read my contributions to that thread.
 
#9
Dogface said:
I was also told a Yank should NOT post about UK domestic issues to which I asked if the same held true for Brits posting about US domestic issues (a question IIRC that went largely unanswered).
It's a free website - if people want to talk about it - let them. The same goes for you. Having said that, it's a mainly British site so you might want to wind your neck in. Question answered.

Dogface said:
I stand by my observation that I find it quite entertaining reading posts of people getting their knickers in a twist over U.S. domestic issues.
Why shouldn't we? Are US nationals only allowed to comment, hold opinions on, or judge US policies? Given your government's foreign policies, it would seem to me that the opposite applies, ie. that only US nationals are allowed to comment, hold opinions on, or judge other country's policies.
 
#10
Dogface,
You should perhaps realise that there is a degree of fascination with the US on this side of the pond. Part of it is defensive: we tend to be afflicted with many of your ailments some ten years after they've hit you. Part of it is voyeuristic: the US is the largest, ongoing social experiment ever known. A further part is disbelief that the world super power can, at times, exhibit such naivity, arrogance and on ocassion prime stupidity.(This isn't unique. All nations do so, its just really scary when it is the most powerful, imperialistic exporter of national values that does so.) Another part is familial: no matter how close CA gets to having Spanish as it's prime language there are many in the UK who still view the US as a place inhabited by the less gifted members of the family and (whisper this quietly) part of it is envy of some of what America has in such profusion. Add in the factore that we appear umbilically cojoined and you can understand (if not accept) our desire to comment upon your domestic policies.
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#11
woody said:
if bush could do it sure tony would try it he is almost a catholic already .The only good pro lifer is a dead one .Had one of those ******* arrested by the cops outside the hosptial I worked in florida .he was wrting down licence plates and was armed to the teeth .
Dont know what happened to him . If i get killed by the provos or the islamic nutters at least I know what theircause is .
But getting taken out by a pro life f uc k wit or a animal rights loony would really annoy me as their cause are completely barking.




On second thoughts a pro lifer who advocates violence should be killed .the rest can can go and join the taliban they will get on well.
I'm a pro-lifer....

Assume you are anti-life then?

:wink:
 
#12
Dogface

Our own Prime Minister seems to follow your President, and some of his schemes, with a disturbing devotion. I'm sure some recent Labour Party policies or initatives, on closer inspection , will be found to have originated on that side of the pond.

If it happens there, it can almost certainly happen here.

You mention our fascination and commentary on another nation's domestic policies. That may be a fair comment, if we were talking about backyard Burundi. We're not, we're talking about the most powerful nation on Earth , with a disproportionate influence on UK domestic policy.

Therefore, when your President supports an initative, founded solely on 'religous' belief and knowing our own Prime Minister's devotion , (shared prayer meetings) it is a concern.

As for being a US citizen commenting on British issues? I haven't a problem with that , always good to get a view from the outside looking in, as long as it's not a view designed to be trollish.
 
#13
I don't believe W is seriously opposed to abortion. From time to time he pretends he is to give a scrap of encouragement to naive supporters.

If W really opposed abortion, why has he said nothing and done nothing about the large scale use of taxpayers' funds to underwrite it?:

"...in the last seven years alone, Planned Parenthood has earned profits – or built a surplus – of more than $350 million.

In that time period, it has been given government grants of nearly $1.5 billion.

That's what I call subsidizing the abortion industry. While, technically speaking, no U.S. taxpayer dollars are specifically allocated for abortions, Planned Parenthood performed some 1.4 million of them in that same time period."


"Defund Planned Parenthood" by Joseph Farah.
Posted: January 23, 2006
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48455
 
#14
I'm certainly for life to be withdrawn from all the bigoted christian fundementalists pro l3ifers I ve met . Funny how their
quite happy to kill women and health professionals to save the "babies" .But once its out they wouldnt care a shit about it if it was poor or coloured .Pro lifers all ways seem to be gun nuts and pro death penalty . Guess there is no sport in killing them till they learn to run :) .
 
#15
Mind you, look at what happened the last time he reckoned he'd "prevail!" If it goes as well as Iraq did, he'll be scraped into a plastic bucket in weeks!
 
#16
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
I don't believe W is seriously opposed to abortion. From time to time he pretends he is to give a scrap of encouragement to naive supporters.

If W really opposed abortion, why has he said nothing and done nothing about the large scale use of taxpayers' funds to underwrite it?:

"...in the last seven years alone, Planned Parenthood has earned profits – or built a surplus – of more than $350 million.

In that time period, it has been given government grants of nearly $1.5 billion.

That's what I call subsidizing the abortion industry. While, technically speaking, no U.S. taxpayer dollars are specifically allocated for abortions, Planned Parenthood performed some 1.4 million of them in that same time period."


"Defund Planned Parenthood" by Joseph Farah.
Posted: January 23, 2006
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48455
I agree. The failed nomination of Harriet Meiers illustrates this. Speaking as someone who supports the criminalization of abortion, I can't understand why so many other people who share my position believe that W. walks on water. The man is a tosser.
 
#17
When I meet someone who is antichoice who is rational I will change my mind ,its just the only ones I ve met in real life have struck me as nutters . Obssesed with sex /sin . The f uck wits have considred my wife a legitimate target I ve got nothing but contempt for them and their bigoted views .
 
#18
And you and people like you consider my family targets as my wife worked in a family planning clinic .The anti choice argument
is irrational to my mind and a lot of people who believe it very unpleasent.
 
#19
I consider Abortion a womans matter that men should stay out of.
Yes I know men have an imput or there would not be a problem in the first place.
I have know many women who have had abortions and all where left mentally scarred by it.
No woman gets pregnant planning to have it chopped as it grows insider her.
Womens matter.
john
 
#20
jonwilly said:
I consider Abortion a womans matter that men should stay out of.
Yes I know men have an imput or there would not be a problem in the first place.
I have know many women who have had abortions and all where left mentally scarred by it.
No woman gets pregnant planning to have it chopped as it grows insider her.
Womens matter.
john
Agreed. At a personal level, I don't see how I could ever do it, but the more important thing is that I know I will never be put in that position. IMHO- and to paraphrase the words of the two-winged master race- no uterus, no vote.
 

Latest Threads

Top