the president contradicts himself again.
From a story regarding stem cell research and the threat of a veto from the president:
“I’ve made it very clear… the use of federal money, taxpayers’ money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life, I’m against that,” he told reporters.
Foreign policy that has the same stated purpose (whether or not it’s true), however, is apparently OK.
23 Comments
but that life isn’t innoscent witto babies!
Exactly the opposite for the ” left ” , ” it’s ok to kill the innocent babies in the womb and those in the tube, but not those face to face..
Why, I wonder, the face to face can fight back?
Murder is wrong.
I predict a long comment coming up real soon.
maybe i can step in there and take this one: i don’t think either jared or myself are for abortion.
as far as “the left,” well, they generally don’t consider fetuses to be life yet. so really, they stand for the preservation of life in their own view of what life is.
Thanks, Nathan. I was going to keep this one pretty short anyway, since it’s so simple.
Forget the “right” or “left”. My personal opinion (opposing both) is consistent, whereas the point of the post is that the president’s is not.
One more quick one; Nathan makes an excellent point about the general nature of the “pro-choice” view - it isn’t “anti-life” (from their point of view), as the “pro-life” side often likes to inflamatorily claim.
I think a lot of people who oppose abortion in America would be surprised to find that most people (regardless of their “pro-?” label) would agree that it would be a good thing to reduce the overall number of abortions women are going through.
Maybe if we could unite on that point and work towards that end, including taking realistic steps in the areas of education, contraception, etc. we’d get a lot more accomplished, rather than wasting time and building barriers to progress by labeling the other side “anti-life” or “anti-choice”.
I am glad to hear that you JB are against abortions.
Mr. S I expected you to be from your comments.
I can also see that JB you feel that the Irag war is not a just war and that the killing going on is immoral. I feel they same way about abortions and stem cell research.
The president sees Irag as a just moral war, you dont.That doesnt imply hypocracy just a difference in perspective. Perpective is a powerful thing in that you could say hey Irag’s are dying for oil. Perspective also sees charts of population growth and inconvenience and welcomes the murder of babies as nothing.
Many of the democratic party are for abortion. That is a measurable fact. Many of all political orientations ” cop out ” by saying that they personally oppose abortion but want to leave it up to the woman to choose. That is just a passive response.
True enough on wasted energy and labels.
We have more education, contraception et al than ever before. And yet preganancy is and abortions rates are very high. Personally trying to help at a very local level is about I can see that will have any effect. Supporting those women who find themselves with a baby that was not planned or after they have had an abortion to somehow help them thru it.
Thank God abortion was not legal when I was born as I was adopted.
I think we can all agree on the sadness of it all.
I understand what you’re saying. I do have to clarify though, in that the point of my post (about the hypocrisy) is not one of perspective.
The president clearly states his opinion regarding methods that “destroys life in order to save life, I’m against that”. Even the most adamant supporters of the war would admit that a justified war is about exactly that.
I believe that if you asked the president about the tens of thousands that have died so far, he would respond by saying that in the end it was for the sake of saving more lives.
Again, I wouldn’t agree with that position, but I’m saying the president in his own mind is contradicting himself.
If I wanted to be really cynical, I would say that the only way he’s not contradicting himself is if he actually realizes that the war really isn’t “destroying life in order to save it”, but that there are other agendas behind it; at least then he wouldn’t be hypocritical, but I don’t think that’s the case, I think he honestly believes that the war is in the end saving lives (which therefore makes his above statement hypocritical, regardless of your perspective).
I see what you are thinking about the pres. I dont come to that conclusion when I read and look at this. It is two separate issues to me. The Irag war and abortion.
He does make that statement but I think you are taking it too literal as a policy statement for the bush doctrine and oh look you caught him in hypocritical statement. It seems a stretch to pull it into the irag war issue. I see how and what you are saying though.
In all this back and forth about this there has been I want to state the following as some part of the foundation of where I am coming from in our discussions -
I can see and read your pain and frustration over this issue. It’s a horror show to me also.
I respect your postion and it’s great you are trying to be active in some way to stop the war. I hope it stops soon. I dont have a clue about what I can do to bring it to a good conclusion now.
This is all that I feel I can effect: A bridge guy named Dave is over there right now. He is in the Seabees re-building the infrastructure somewhere and has to stay at least 9 months. He asked that the bridge pray for him and his friend Zack for protection and their battlion.
Yes, I’m not sure how much good it does for me to point it out either. I’m just sick of his party (especially evident in the last election) trying to claim the moral high ground, based a select few issues (abortion and gay marriage) without considering all the other policies, which have significant moral components as well that they are on the wrong side of (IMHO).
Clarifying -I dont see the contradiction in the statement as he is stating opinions about science, and yes he is in favor of taking life in a war.
Never been a fan of politics but I had hope that with a majority things would be better all around. The rep. party has dropped the ball in so many ways.
They have number 1 ( IMHO) tried to protect themselves instead of doing anything for the country. They now have the power to make positive change instead we get ” kow tow” for expansion of power base ie - The kennedy ed bill, which was a big fat waste ( like ted’s contributions ) of money and they did it to have kennedy on their side but he isn’t and never will be.
They should do something about other issues like making the fuel cell happen, fix healthcare, illegal immigration and on and on, but it’s a big grind of self interest that isnt going anywhere.
It’s one issue - the war.
The world and america specifically is on the brink of a very bad economic cycle - a Kronditieff winter ( spelling is wrong ) and steps need to be taken now to avoid a severe recession/depression. BUT it’s all fighting the media’s accusations and political bs.
This is exactly how I felt when we tried to get rid of nixon when he lied to america right to their face on national tv.
The moral high ground grandstanding is pugnacious in light of reality.
So they, rep., used everyone too.
It looks like your first post became a news item and came back to your blog????
It’s a trackback, which is someone else posting on their blog about my post, and linking back to mine.
because they like the post and or your blog.
From Nathan comment above –
“as far as “the left,â€? well, they generally don’t consider fetuses to be life yet. so really, they stand for the preservation of life in their own view of what life is. ”
Yeah kinda like the way the south thought about their black slaves.
Remember what I said about both sides coming together and working on the issue?
The previous comment is a prefect example of why that doesn’t happen.
Well I thought a good example why all sides can’t come together was when you said, “it would be a good thing to reduce the overall number of abortions women are going through” when you clearly should of have said, “it would be a good thing to reduce the number of defenseless, innocent babies murdered by thier selfish mothers”.
I’m taking that as a joke, but just in case…
To clarify, the reason I used that language was that phrasing it that way leads to an approach that both sides can agree on.
Too bad both sides would rather polarize and make no progress.
I was being over the top (of course:), but I do think that placating the opposition with such diplomatic verbiage does give them a sense a legitimacy that may be counter productive. On the most important issues such as defending human dignity there may be no room for compromise.
Partnering with those you disagree with to achieve a common goal does not necessarily involve a compromise in principles.
A strict policy of “no compromise”, even on human dignity issues, usually impedes progress.
It’s unfortunate that even after decades of ineffectiveness, the “pro-lifers” are unwilling to explore options that would in the end reduce the number of abortions being had. I guess those lives are the cost of their stubbornness.
It was joke to keep the dialog going, to spur more and respond to something I didnt see the first time I read it but is nonetheless true…
how can you concur with someone so different other than agree to disagree?
We all agree on the abortion issue here, I think, and do probably have an approach that is not confrontational with opposing views on abortion and an open heart for any who have been victimized by this current climate of license.
You know when people start to preach to me about this or that anti God thing or pro choice. If they ask for my opinion I just gently state my own view, not debating, usually I just say ” I understand, well I beleive this …”
I think we need to take it a step further than agreeing to disagree, and find a common goal that we can agree on and work towards it, as I’ve outlined above.
those who strongly favor abortion dont seem to want to work for anything like abstinence or adoption, and those who are strongly prolife see the devil in sex ed.
“I guess those lives are the cost of their stubbornness.” - the lives that are being taken are the sole personal responsibility of those making that decision: the woman, the doctors.
One Trackback
In a shocking turn of events,
Did it really go down like this:…