Condy Rice

"4000 dead babies per day are the result. "
"
That huge number is the principle reason nothing is being done about it. There is a HUGE demand for abortions in the USA. Actually moving against it would unleash forces that don't like abortions, but don't want the option taken away if push came to shove.
For forces, read: millions of American voters who deep down realize that they or somebody close to them might 'need' one some day.

 

Could be. Too bad a "definition" doesn't work to change the law.</font>[/QUOTE] Policy positions do however... especially when they are tied to the electoral formula.

Barring a complete meltdown by the Dems, the GOP will never elect a pro-choice President. Easily 20 % of Bush's voters will abandon them if they try... including most if not all of the cross over Dems.

It will take more than just split power or small majorities to overturn Roe v Wade. If Bush follows through on his promise to appoint strict constructionists to the SCOTUS however, we might see abortion back to the legislatures where it belongs within the next few years.

Harry Reid's appointment as the minority leader in the Senate is a very good step toward this end.

The watch is on what the GOP does with Specter. I expect him to jump ship if he isn't named chairman... which would suit me fine.

 

I don't think the numbers of people in the last category are huge.

Anyway, right and wrong are not determined by the majority, so the only thing to do is to outlaw abortion.

 

Bush named Stephen Hadley, Rice's deputy, to replace her as national security adviser, the top White House-based foreign policy aide.

Source: My Way News

 

I am with PA Jim on this. A legitimate abortion debate needs to happen now in the US.

I find it very hard to believe that people could face 3-D color images of babies in the womb and say that they can arbitrarily be killed out of convenience.

Most Americans are ignorant (and our liberal establishments in media and education are in no hurry to enlighten them) of fetal development. They don't know how quickly human features develop, how soon heart beats and brain waves can be detected... even most of those who have had abortions have not been confronted with images of dismembered, aborted babies. Few know that aborted babies sometimes come out severely injured but alive and are left on a table to die. (I think the GOP congress that Jim so disdains recently outlawed this without media fanfare).

I believe that most Americans are "pro-choice" because they really don't know what abortion entails... at least I hope this is the case .

 

Scott J
"Most Americans are not interested in sacrificing our national sovereignty and autonomy."
"
Ofcourse not, it's much better to make others do that.

 

Yes, they did - LINK

 

"I find it very hard to believe that people could face 3-D color images of babies in the womb and say that they can arbitrarily be killed out of convenience. "
"
That's why many Americans who aren't exactly pro-life are at least very uncomfortable about abortion.
Ofcourse when they decide their back is against the wall they'll take one anyway.

 

Make? I don't think so.

At any point during the Cold War Europe could have started financing its own defense... instead, most European countries instituted lavish welfare states- financed indirectly by the American taxpayer (since you didn't have to pay for your defense).

Of course, now that there is no more Soviet threat to Europe, past kindnesses are to be forgotten.

 

I am not sure that abortion can or should be approached from a strongly moral angle.

The critical point from a national standpoint should be when does life legally, objectively begin. I don't think it can possibly be any later than when a sustained heart beat can be measured. A strong objective case can be made for the point of conception. Only a refusal to be objective can conclude with the moment of birth.

If a person in the hospital has a self-sustaining heart beat and a high likelihood of returning to a healthy, normal life then there would be no question about whether that person had a right to live no matter how much inconvenience it might cause others.

 

Scott
"The critical point from a national standpoint should be when does life legally, objectively begin."
"
That's what you want (and I applaud you for wanting it), but that certainly isn't what many people truly want.

"At any point during the Cold War Europe could have started financing its own defense"
"
So they did, the reason the US had those troops stationed overhere was to compensate for the fact that Russia was a lot closer to a potential European front than the US was.

 

I she's pro-abortion, I couldn't care less whether she claims to be a Christian or not. </font>[/QUOTE]My point was that if she's a Christian (or claims to know Him), how could she possibly support abortion? Honestly, I was totally ignorant of her views, and frankly assumed she was pro life.(because of her claim of being a Christian)

 

There are many who claim to be Christians who also support abortions in some or all cases.

 

Could be. Too bad a "definition" doesn't work to change the law.</font>[/QUOTE] Policy positions do however... especially when they are tied to the electoral formula.

...</font>[/QUOTE]No, they don't. The only thing that counts, from a legal perspective, is changing the law to make abortion a felony. We have had politicians "taking positions" for 31 years, but unwilling to actually do something. "Taking positions" is what they do to get your vote. We need to stop voting for politicians with "positions" who are unwilling to take action.

 

No offense, Orvie, but I suggest that you should find out more about politicians before you voice support for them. They KNOW what you want to hear, and will not hesitate to say it. Treat them all like Democrats until they prove different.

 

"...Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice’s right-hand man in the Bush administration’s National Security Council, served as the fall guy when allegations arose regarding the national security adviser’s mishandling of information about Iraq’s purported effort to buy uranium from Niger. According to the Washington Post, Hadley was told by CIA Director George Tenet that the Niger allegations, which were used by Bush in various speeches (including the January 2003 State of the Union Address) and served as a key justification for invading Iraq, were probably bogus and should not be used by the president. Hadley, who claimed that Rice had been unaware of the controversy, told the newspaper, “I should have recalled ... that there was controversy associated with the uranium issue.” ..."

SOURCE


See how it works? When wrongdoing takes place, some underling says "I take responsibility", the president says "there you have it, case closed", then when it cools down the fall guy gets a big promotion.

 

You are exactly right, PA Jim. That's how it works.

 

That should be posted at the top of the politics forum. Indeed, those who don't act like democrats are hard to find, these days.