Christopher,
Let's start with the "partial birth abortion" work that Bush did. That is a disgrace. It works to serve the abortion industry by agreeing with them that birth is an important distinction. It's like two countries fighting over a border but then both countries agree with what that border is and should be. Once that happens.... the war is over. Second, as anyone can tell you, the ban is only a token because it saves no life; it just prevents one kind of killing, but the same thing still happens, the same cruelty still happens -- just now we say birth or semi-birth makes all the difference. A victory? No, a defeat!
Second, remember Bush is the one who went out to let everyone know he was the first President to give federal funds to embryonic stem cell research. He bragged about it as a positive thing he did in the 2004 election. Would a true pro-lifer would do that? No
Now we might want to look at some old pieces which explore the claim of Bush's so-called pro-life stand. I will be posting many comments from the 2000 and 2004 election on the theme at hand. While I would not agree with everything stated in them (esp when it gets beyond the abortion question), nonetheless they bring up valid questions.
Probably the most interesting pulling together of sources was "Why Christians should not vote for George W. Bush." Obviously the person writing it and I do not agree on many points. But his discussion on abortion contains many long-forgotten points (such as when Alan Keyes called Bush out saying his position was NOT pro-life; ): http://
intellectualconservative....rticle3114.html
1999: Gary Bauer pointed out Bush was operationally pro-choice: http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/.../99-06-
29.shtml
http://www.newswithviews.com/Bro...nlow/
david5.htm from David Brownlow
http://www.covenantnews.com/
lefe...emine041011.htm Points to extra-funding Bush gave to abortion providers
http://www.freedomwriter.com/iss...ssue32/
am42.htm with more funding stats
Of course, you can be satisfied that he does a good magic trick making it look like he has done more than he really has.
Christopher, Henry and some of the other usual suspects at Vox Nova will strain gnats and swallow camels in order to attack pro-life Repulicans and support pro-abort Democrats.
Donald
Where do you see me supporting Democrats?
Henry said:
"1999: Gary Bauer pointed out Bush was operationally pro-choice..."
Was Bush the president in 1999? And why would Bauer be making such a claim before Bush was even in the White House? Oh, that's right. Bauer wanted the same job back in 1999-2000 and was trying to run to Bush's right to win social conservatives. Has Bauer made any similar comments since then?
And is Bauer someone you generally quote as an authority on matters? Do you slip Bauer's name into the discussion and quote him when you're talking to your intellectual counterparts in academia?
Or do you refer to Bauer as some sort of authority on who's pro-life and who isn't only when you're speaking to the "duped" because you think he means something to us?
Geez. Can't even spell my own name.
;-)
Jay
It is interesting to see what you respond to -- side issues. Sad.
Misspelling my own name may indeed be a side issue, but I felt that I needed to point out my own mistake.
Henry,
No one has asserted that Bush is perfectly pro-life or that he has achieved everything one could wish to see achieved. However, he has achieved much, and although I'd love to see a more pro-life politician in the oval office, it strikes me as self deceiving to the point of idiocy to claim it would be better not to worry about voting anti-abortion at all than to support people like Bush.
For someone who often accuses others of dualism, you seem to have created a good != perfect, thus good = bad equation in your head. One assumes that grad school, even in these benighted days, often demands better thinking than this.
Let's start with the "partial birth abortion" work that Bush did. That is a disgrace. . . .
I'll let the USCCB argue the case for me:
See the USCCB's formal position on partial birth abortion legislation and more recently Cardinal Justin Rigali's statement welcoming the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 in Gonzales v. Carhart. April 18, 2007:
“The Court’s decision does not affect the legal status of the great majority of abortions, and does not reverse past decisions claiming to find a right to abortion in the Constitution. However, it provides reasons for renewed hope and renewed effort on the part of pro-life Americans. The Court is taking a clearer and more unobstructed look at the tragic reality of abortion, and speaking about that reality more candidly, than it has in many years.
“Especially welcome is the Court’s explicit recognition of certain key facts: that abortion is the taking of a human life, and that government has a legitimate interest in protecting and preserving this life at every stage; that 'respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child'; that abortion may also cause grief and sorrow for women, which is only made worse when the reality of the procedure has been withheld from them until it is too late; and that the ethical integrity of the medical profession, as well as the fabric of our society, is threatened by the acceptance of practices that are difficult to distinguish from infanticide.
See also Partial-birth Abortion Reflection by Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo Pontifical Council for the Family. October 05, 1995.
Cardinal Trujillo's statement is to lengthy to post in this combox and should be read in full, as it counter's Henry's cursory dismissal of the legislation as insignificant to pro-lifers.
It's amusing, Henry -- one of the points Keyes raises with respect to President Bush is the fact that on the campaign trail, George Bush and his wife both admitted that they don’t think Roe v. Wade should be overturned: “I don’t think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions,” President Bush professed.
This is in fact EXACTLY what we've been hearing over and over again from your colleague Gerald Campbell at Vox Nova.
This can be argued both ways -- I agree: I don't think the culture has been changed that the American populace on the whole would rally for an overturning of Roe vs. Wade. I agree with Gerald Campbell's diagnosis that much in our culture is sick and needs spiritual reparation.
However, it cannot be said, and I think I've demonstrated this in this post, that under the Bush administration that he hasn't made an effort to appoint pro-life officials, support pro-life legislation recognizing the human worth of the unborn (and bringing this before the eyes of the mother and the abortionist) as well as personally blocking attempts by Democrats that would be considered contrary to the "culture of life."
And I will continue to maintain that policy counts. It is not sufficient in itself to end abortion. Realistically speaking, I don't think you can really END abortion, any more than you can abolish poverty or war or any other evil; but you can diminish it, and the policy we legislate counts towards this end.
They are debating this post at Vox Nova, and DarwinCatholic has provided a rebuttal to Henry on the "Bush is not pro-life" meme. As I couldn't really add anything further I'll simply say that I concur with DarwinCatholic.
Darwin basically said "don't make pro-life" Pro-Life. That's a great rebutal. Yes. It is.
usual suspects at Vox Nova will strain gnats and swallow camels in order to attack pro-life Repulicans and support pro-abort Democrats.
I don't mind criticism of anything that is up on our blog, Donald. But please don't deliberately mischaracterize anybody's views. One contributor has stated his support for Obama without ripping on the Republicans (this same contributor held a high position under Reagan's adminstration). No other contributor has stated his/her support for a "pro-abort Democrat." Of course, it may be easier for you to conflate the statements of many different contributors, but I ask that you allow reason to prevail and that you respectfully state exactly whom it is you are criticizing and that you state accurately his/her position.
Of course, it may be easier for you to conflate the statements of many different contributors, but I ask that you allow reason to prevail and that you respectfully state exactly whom it is you are criticizing and that you state accurately his/her position.
Michael Joseph: you're right. To that end I have identified the sources of the quotes I cited and provided links to the discussions.
No, Henry, I suggested that if you want to have a discussion with people, that you make sure you are discussing the same thing. It's a basic need if one is going to engage in reasoned discourse, and the way things are going (there and here) suggest that you may be talking as cross purposes to your readers and thus creating general frustration.
What do they teach them in schools these days...?
I will be exact Michael Joseph: Gerald Campbell is of course a supporter of Obama, Tony, aka Morning's Minion makes no secret of his support of the Democrat party, and Henry seems to be doing his best to pretend that the Republican party is as bad as the Democrat party on abortion, a manifest absurdity. These are the "usual suspects" I referred to and I would further note that MM and Henry are two of the more prolific posters at Vox Nova.
I will happily concede that other contributors at Vox Nova, including yourself, are quite firmly pro-life.
President Bush is not Pro-Life. As long as he allows for abortion in the cases of rape and incest he can not be considered pro-life. (let alone his war policies, etc that are definitely anti-life)
Instead of tooting the horn of the Republicans how about pushing for Republicans to have a consistent life view. Where ALL of life is precious?
The difference between the Democrats and Republicans on abortion is one of degree. So Bush has given the appearance of being pro-life. What are the bottom line numbers for his eight years in office?
I would think with a Republican President, A Republican Congress for six years, and the appointment of conservative Supreme Court justices that the abortion issue would be settled. The Republicans had the power.........what happened?
Go ahead and snipe at the Democrats but it is the Republicans that could have done something and didn't.
I don't believe either party will settle the abortion issue. Ultimately, it will be kicked back to the states and it will become a states issue. We will end up with anti and pro abortion states.
Go ahead and snipe at the Democrats but it is the Republicans that could have done something and didn't.
I take it you didn't read the post?
Does anyone know why President Bush has never attended the annual Pro-Life March in Washington?
You'd think if abortion was so near to his heart, he would have made a point to attend at least one year out of the eight to offer a few words of support for the movement and the marchers.
Zero for eight is pretty weak.
I really don't understand you people.
You keep analyzing Presiden Bush's motives, claiming that "he doesn't really care about abortion," and "he just wants our votes". I answer: SO WHAT?
I don't care about Bush's inner motives. I care about saving the unborn. Period. George Bush has protected the unborn. You may say, "not enough!" Compared to who? A mythical candidate? A third party candidate who has absolutely no chance of even coming close to winning? Or..compared to the Democratic Party?
The Republican party will protect the unborn more than the Democratic party. We're talking about unborn lives here - unborn lives that George Bush has done more to protect than any of us will ever do.
The amount of petty judgementalism I have seen here is amazing. I can only come to the conclusion that some people care more about nurturing a grudge against Bush than they do about the unborn.
Commenting by HaloScan
