All you PRO LIFERS out there..answer me this about GW

[reeds]

Talk about being a hypocrite.....is BUSH REALLY PRO LIFE????? hmmmmmm



Bush is
Responsible for the execution of at least one mentally ill prisoner (Terry Washington) while Governor of TX.[1]
Executed 150 men and two women while Governor of TX, a record unmatched in modern times

So which is it?? Its murder to abort, but what the hell..he is only retarded, kill the bastard...

[u2sarajevo]

I think you need to do more research on why he was given the death sentence.

George didn't just say "Oh a mentally challenged person, lets put him to death". Get real.

[dude1394]

Yes he is pro-life. He is willing to let juries give death-sentences to criminals to save innocent life. Both in the future to keep from the criminal being a parolee and as a deterrance.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
I think you need to do more research on why he was given the death sentence.

George didn't just say "Oh a mentally challenged person, lets put him to death". Get real.

No, GWBush didn't sentence Terry Washington to death, but then he also (as he did 152 of the 153 times as Governor) refused to consider clemency. This was the case with an issue of a mentally retarded person as Washington had the mental ability of a 7 year old (in spite of SCOUS rulings) and felons under the age of 18 (prohibited by International Law). When you recall his very disturbing manner of speaking about Carla Tucker (recalling Tucker's statement on Larry King Bush ridiculed Tucker by paroding her with "'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, `don't kill me.'") one must ask why GWBush didn't show the same amount of "compassion" for those he refused to consider clemency for as he does for the unborn child.

From Atlantic Monthly:
"In the morning of May 6, 1997, Governor George W. Bush signed his name to a confidential three-page memorandum from his legal counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, and placed a bold black check mark next to a single word: DENY. It was the twenty-ninth time a death-row inmate's plea for clemency had been denied in the twenty-eight months since Bush had been sworn in. In this case Bush's signature led, shortly after 6:00 P.M. on the very same day, to the execution of Terry Washington, a mentally retarded thirty-three-year-old man with the communication skills of a seven-year-old.

The case of Terry Washington was typical. Gonzales devoted nearly a third of his three-page report on Washington to the gruesome details of the crime. He informed Bush that the victim, Beatrice Huling, was a twenty-nine-year-old restaurant manager, and wrote, "An autopsy determined she suffered 85 stab wounds, seven of which were fatal, and was eviscerated." But the summary refers only fleetingly to the central issue in Washington's clemency appeal—his limited mental capacity, which was never disputed by the State of Texas—and presents it as part of a discussion of "conflicting information" about the condemned man's childhood. (The page containing this discussion is missing from the copy of the summary signed by Bush, raising the possibility that he never actually saw it before authorizing Washington's execution.) Most important, Gonzales failed to mention that Washington's mental limitations, and the fact that he and his ten siblings were regularly beaten with whips, water hoses, extension cords, wire hangers, and fan belts, were never made known to the jury, although both the district attorney and Washington's trial lawyer knew of this potentially mitigating evidence. (Washington did not testify at his trial or his sentencing.)

The record suggests that what Bush described in his autobiography as "a fair hearing and full access to the courts" meant in reality nothing more than that a case had received some sort of legal attention at all state and federal levels. In the case of Karla Faye Tucker, the first woman executed in Texas in more than a hundred years, Bush wrote to at least two constituents that he had refused to grant a reprieve precisely because "the courts, including the United States Supreme Court," had "reviewed the legal issues in this case" and denied all appeals. But clemency is a political act, not a judicial one. By eliminating "legal issues" from executive consideration, Bush in effect refused to address what were often the condemned person's strongest claims. Indeed, the fact that courts have rejected a defendant's legal claims arguably places an added burden on a governor—as the conscience of the state and the literal court of last resort—to conduct a scrupulous review. This is especially true in Texas, where more than a third of executions in the United States since 1976 have occurred; where half of all capital cases are overturned on appeal because of errors during trial; where seven innocent men have been freed from death row, including one under Bush; where, according to The Dallas Morning News, nearly a quarter of the condemned were represented by attorneys who had been disciplined for professional misconduct; and where 30 percent of those executed under Bush between his inauguration in 1995 and June 11, 2000, according to the Chicago Tribune, were represented by attorneys who presented no mitigating evidence or only one witness during the sentencing phase of the trial. Given this environment, Gonzales's neglect of mitigating evidence in the clemency-review process is highly problematic."

Albertpo Gonzalez is now with GWBush in the White House as his Chief Counsel.

[u2sarajevo]

Although personally I don't think capital punishment is right, you might be pointing your animosity in the wrong place. Washington got a jury trial, so obviously at least 12 other citizens felt he deserved death.

Alberto Gonzalez is now with GWBush in the White House as his Chief Counsel.

So are we to believe that GW made a deal with Gonzalez that if he half-assed the clemency-review process... thus allowing GW to kill more murderers... he would in turn receive a staff assignment?

Okay.

"Alberto, if you know, don't put much into that clemency-review so I can kill the SOB you can be a member of my staff when I make President!"

Uh-huh.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
Although personally I don't think capital punishment is right, you might be pointing your animosity in the wrong place. Washington got a jury trial, so obviously at least 12 other citizens felt he deserved death.

I wouldn't call it "animosity" as much as disappointment. We elect the Governor to carry out his duties, and it appears that in the case with executions GWBush was eager to see the sentence cqarried out rather than spending the time to be fully informed about the cases and thereby having the ability to decide if clemency was deserved.

The issue with the court proceedings- which is how these jurors determined their verdict- is a very big issue. As mentioned in the article above, most of these convictions were rendered with inadequate counsel, and with mitigating issues (such as Washington's mental retardation) never being voiced in the court.

Alberto Gonzalez is now with GWBush in the White House as his Chief Counsel.

So are we to believe that GW made a deal with Gonzalez that if he half-assed the clemency-review process... thus allowing GW to kill more murderers... he would in turn receive a staff assignment?

Okay.

"Alberto, if you know, don't put much into that clemency-review so I can kill the SOB you can be a member of my staff when I make President!"

Uh-huh.[/quote]

LMAO. The work of Gonzales, as mentioned in the Atlantic Monthly article, is lacking in its presentation of all the issues with that person being considered. It indicates that GWBush, as well as Gonzales, don't want to be burdened by the facts, by the history, when making a decision on a person's life. Not very "compassionate" is it?

[Usually Lurkin]

In Texas in those 5 years:

152 convicted criminals executed v. 500,000 innocent babies terminated.

the way issues are drawn up along party lines, that's pretty much the choice we voters have.

[dude1394]

Seeing as how most death penalty cases take up to ten years to carry out, multiple, multiple re-appraisals of the trial, I have no issue with bush carrying out his duties. I also could care less to be honest the mental capacities of a murderer who has stabbed their victim 85 times and eviscerated them. I'm sure as the person was being stabbed to death, they didn't think a heck of a lot about their mental capacity either.

I think you need to do a little better than this to get me to cry crocodile tears for this kind of murderer.

[mavsman55]

Reeds, you make it sound like these people never murdered anybody. The fact remains:

FETUSES DON'T KILL PEOPLE.

[reeds]

"Reeds, you make it sound like these people never murdered anybody. The fact remains:

FETUSES DON'T KILL PEOPLE."


Mavsman- did you read the part about Terry Washingtons childhood? I could make the arugument there that abortion may have been a better option for Mr. Washington's mother..obviously he wasnt what I would call "wanted or loved". "and the fact that he and his ten siblings were regularly beaten with whips, water hoses, extension cords, wire hangers, and fan belts"

Seems to me there is a problem with values...Dont abort ANY baby for any reason, just have the baby instead..start abusing them because you dont want, love or care about them...what happens next? They can turn out like Mr. Washington..of course not all abused babies/kids do, but the majority of our prison population if filled with abused childhoods..

So can you honestly tell me abortion would have been worse in the case of Mr. Washington? Mr. Washington would not have been born-thats a fact..There also would not have been a murder of Beatrice Huling. There would not have been a prisoner in the system taking up space and tax payer dollars...just something to think about...

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: reeds

Mavsman- did you read the part about Terry Washingtons childhood? I could make the arugument there that abortion may have been a better option for Mr. Washington's mother..obviously he wasnt what I would call "wanted or loved". "and the fact that he and his ten siblings were regularly beaten with whips, water hoses, extension cords, wire hangers, and fan belts"

So if that is your stance, why are you so concerned with killing him now? If it was okay to kill him before he came out of the womb, why not now? I mean, after all, he isn't loved by anyone. Right?

Seems to me there is a problem with values...Dont abort ANY baby for any reason, just have the baby instead..start abusing them because you dont want, love or care about them...what happens next? They can turn out like Mr. Washington..of course not all abused babies/kids do, but the majority of our prison population if filled with abused childhoods..

So should we just kill all abused kids? Is that the answer? Or how about sterilizing persons who we might think would abuse their children... just in case?

So can you honestly tell me abortion would have been worse in the case of Mr. Washington? Mr. Washington would not have been born-thats a fact..There also would not have been a murder of Beatrice Huling. There would not have been a prisoner in the system taking up space and tax payer dollars...just something to think about...

Hindsight is 20/20 reeds.

[Usually Lurkin]

Reeds,

How many of Washington's 10 siblings got themselves onto death row?
How many poverty stricken, abused minorities with low IQ do you think don't kill other people?
Even 1 would mean Washington made a choice to do what he did.

If, as you suggest, we should kill people before they make the decision to kill and mutilate others, wouldn't that leave us with pretty much nobody left on earth?

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
Reeds,

How many of Washington's 10 siblings got themselves onto death row?
How many poverty stricken, abused minorities with low IQ do you think don't kill other people?
Even 1 would mean Washington made a choice to do what he did.

If, as you suggest, we should kill people before they make the decision to kill and mutilate others, wouldn't that leave us with pretty much nobody left on earth?

GENIOUS GENIOUS GENIOUS

Now's the part of the thread where reeds stops replying because he's been beaten, and goes and spouts anti-Bush crap on another thread.

[reeds]

"So if that is your stance, why are you so concerned with killing him now? If it was okay to kill him before he came out of the womb, why not now? I mean, after all, he isn't loved by anyone. Right?"


First off all, I never said it was okay to kill him before- I said "abort"- by defenition is not killing him..i wont get into the conception/fetus crap right now...obviously that will open another can of worms. It would of saved the innocent womans life- that much you cant deny.

"How many of Washington's 10 siblings got themselves onto death row?
How many poverty stricken, abused minorities with low IQ do you think don't kill other people?
Even 1 would mean Washington made a choice to do what he did.

If, as you suggest, we should kill people before they make the decision to kill and mutilate others, wouldn't that leave us with pretty much nobody left on earth?"

Well, we really dont know about Washingtons 10 siblings now do we? Id be willing to wager none are model citizens- thats for sure...it would be very interesting to research though.
And many poverty stricken, abused minorities with low IQ dont kill other people-all I am saying is do the research on death row..most come from broken families, were abused(sexually and or physically), poor, etc...i didnt say all- most.



"If, as you suggest, we should kill people before they make the decision to kill and mutilate others, wouldn't that leave us with pretty much nobody left on earth?"


I suggested that? Hmmm...I thought I said in Mr Washingtons case it may have been the right decision based on the life he had of being beaten constantly with whips, cords, belts, etc..obviously wasnt loved from day one....why should a human life be brought up to take that abuse?

[dude1394]

Reeds....

Is someone who supports sucking the brains out of a baby after the head has passed the mother and aborting it pro-choice?

[reeds]

"Reeds....

Is someone who supports sucking the brains out of a baby after the head has passed the mother and aborting it pro-choice? "

I dont agree with that type of abortion what so ever...but I am pro-choice...does that answer your question?

[dude1394]

So what type do you support?

[reeds]

First trimester abortions..where the woman feels there are no other options for her or her child. As I said- some dont beleive I am being truthful, but I personally dont feel abortion would ever be an option with me EVER, but i am still pre-choice...I beleive the bottom line is I Life in a free country- I beleive it is the womans choice- NO one elses....

[dude1394]

But not for second, third tri-mesters?

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: reeds
First trimester abortions..where the woman feels there are no other options for her or her child.

What's so magical about Day 90 vs. Day 91? What's different about the baby on Day 91 that suggests that they are suddenly worthy of protection when they weren't on Day 90?

I beleive the bottom line is I Life in a free country- I beleive it is the womans choice- NO one elses....

Where is the baby's choice? Shouldn't the baby have a choice to live or not?

[Murphy3]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
Reeds,

How many of Washington's 10 siblings got themselves onto death row?
How many poverty stricken, abused minorities with low IQ do you think don't kill other people?
Even 1 would mean Washington made a choice to do what he did.

If, as you suggest, we should kill people before they make the decision to kill and mutilate others, wouldn't that leave us with pretty much nobody left on earth?

Let's ignore that argument. As a member of the far left, it does nothing to support my opinion so I would rather you not bring it up. So, I'm going to conveniently ignore and/or distort your argument to better my opinion. After all, I am a member of the far left.

[reeds]

"But not for second, third tri-mesters? "

2nd tri-mesters in rare cases perhaps..if it will save the womans life...3rd trimesters I dont want to even try to imagine....


"Let's ignore that argument. As a member of the far left, it does nothing to support my opinion so I would rather you not bring it up. So, I'm going to conveniently ignore and/or distort your argument to better my opinion. After all, I am a member of the far left."

Murphy- You are seriously not telling us you are on the far left are you??

[mavsman]

The good thing is that the stance towards women who are trying to make decisions on their own is a thing that unites Republicans and hardcore Islamists. So I guess the whole pro-life-thing is just a clever move to show the terrorists that "we" are just like "them", thus hoping to create understanding and to end the war. Just like them, we don't take into account under which circumstances the impregnation has occured, we don't care if the women has been raped and bearing the breed of a criminal psycho, why should we, life is sacred and a woman has no rights whatsoever.

edit: spelling (tori)

[Mavdog]

It was May, 2002, when Bush's HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson joined Iran, Syria, Libya and Iraq in voting no to a UN initiative to provide sexual reproduction education in 3rd world countries.
It seems that the Bush Administration also does not wish poverty stricken women to know about or have access to contraceptives. They actually appeared at a Population conference and stated their suggestion was for the world's women to practice natural birth control.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
It was May, 2002, when Bush's HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson joined Iran, Syria, Libya and Iraq in voting no to a UN initiative to provide sexual reproduction education in 3rd world countries.
It seems that the Bush Administration also does not wish poverty stricken women to know about or have access to contraceptives. They actually appeared at a Population conference and stated their suggestion was for the world's women to practice natural birth control.

from an article that shows that abstinence works

FRIDAY, April 30 (HealthDayNews) -- Adding a new perspective to the ongoing debate over the best way to prevent AIDS in Africa, two British researchers say statistics prove a national emphasis on less casual sex, not more condom use, explains the stunning decline in cases in Uganda.
. . .
According to the researchers, Uganda's approach to AIDS prevention was unusual. Instead of being limited to the media, anti-AIDS campaigns worked their way into communities through "local networks of village meetings, chiefs, musicians, churches and care groups," Low-Beer said. "The population was mobilized directly to confront AIDS and avoid risk, and must take much of the credit."

Ugandans also emphasized abstinence and monogamy. The approach seemed to work -- surveys suggest that casual sex dropped by 60 percent between 1989 and 1995.

Hey, if not having sex helps to prevent AIDS, maybe it'll help prevent unwanted pregnancy, too.

[MavKikiNYC]

Edit.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

from an article that shows that abstinence works

Hey, if not having sex helps to prevent AIDS, maybe it'll help prevent unwanted pregnancy, too.

Without a doubt, if a person does not have sex they will not become pregnant as well as reducing their possible infection by AIDS.

To have abstinence as the only program to reduce pregnancies, or to rely upon abstinence as the primary tool to combat AIDS, is falacious as it is impossible to achieve the desired goals. People will have sex, it's a natural occurance. They may have less sex if abstinence is promoted, but some will continue to have sex, and without other means to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies and education on sex the goal will not be reached.
Sex education is critical to not only reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies but also to stop the tide of AIDS infection.
That is the reason why abstinence may be a part, but not the whole, of the initiatives to combat unwanted pregnancies and also the spread of AIDS.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog. . . People will have sex, it's a natural occurance. They may have less sex if abstinence is promoted, but some will continue to have sex, . . .

To bring this back on topic, by way of analogy:
People will kill people, it's perfectly natural. They might kill less often if it's made illegal, but some will continue to kill others.
So we should make it legal, encourage it, and provide support for those who want to do it in a clean, safe, and [more] guilt free manner.

Just because people will do something no matter how discouraged they are from doing it is no reason to encourage them to do it.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

To bring this back on topic, by way of analogy:
People will kill people, it's perfectly natural. They might kill less often if it's made illegal, but some will continue to kill others.
So we should make it legal, encourage it, and provide support for those who want to do it in a clean, safe, and [more] guilt free manner.

"analogy"???? absurdity is more accurate.
What do you base the assumption on that "people will kill people, it's perfectly natural"??
There are societies in the world that do not have the problem of murder; there are no societies where people do not have sex, for they would cease to exist.

Just because people will do something no matter how discouraged they are from doing it is no reason to encourage them to do it.

It is fallacious to conclude that sex education is going to "encourage" anyone to have sex. In fact, with sex education just the opposite may occur as the man and women will be better informed about their very real chances of pregnancy and STD.

The position of the current administration relative to sex education places the US in company with two of the three "axis of evil" countries, That alone should tell you something...

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: mavsman
The good thing is that the stance towards women who are trying to make decisions on their own is a thing that unites Republicans and hardcore Islamists. So I guess the whole pro-life-thing is just a clever move to show the terrorists that "we" are just like "them", thus hoping to create understanding and to end the war. Just like them, we don't take into account under which circumstances the impregnation has occured, we don't care if the women has been raped and bearing the breed of a criminal psycho, why should we, life is sacred and a woman has no rights whatsoever.

edit: spelling (tori)

You are looking way too far into this. How does refraining from killing children make us exactly like terrorists? I thought terrorists liked to kill people...

[mavsman]

Originally posted by: mavsman55

You are looking way too far into this. How does refraining from killing children make us exactly like terrorists? I thought terrorists liked to kill people...

It's not the "refraining from killing children"-part, but rather the "we don't want our women to make decisions for their own, or any decisions at all"-part that unites us and them. I've asked before and I'm going to ask again, because I didn't get any satisfying answers: There are a tenthousands of girls and women becoming pregnant every year after having been raped. If you deny them the right to abort, you expose them to extreme mental and physical cruelty. The lone fact that a criminal injected his little copulatory organ into that girl makes the result of this act so protectable in your eyes that you deny the girl the right to say "I don't wanna have anything of that please!". I don't get it and I'm afraid I never will.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: mavsman

It's not the "refraining from killing children"-part, but rather the "we don't want our women to make decisions for their own, or any decisions at all"-part that unites us and them. I've asked before and I'm going to ask again, because I didn't get any satisfying answers: There are a tenthousands of girls and women becoming pregnant every year after having been raped. If you deny them the right to abort, you expose them to extreme mental and physical cruelty. The lone fact that a criminal injected his little copulatory organ into that girl makes the result of this act so protectable in your eyes that you deny the girl the right to say "I don't wanna have anything of that please!". I don't get it and I'm afraid I never will.

What about the other 90% of abortions that don't involve any form of rape whatsoever? If a woman is raped, the only right she should have is to have the baby and give it away to an orphanage for it to be raised with other children in a peaceful environment... not just kill it. That's just purely inhumane and if anything, unites us more with terrorists than not giving women the opportunity to kill children.

[Male30Dan]

Originally posted by: mavsman

I've asked before and I'm going to ask again, because I didn't get any satisfying answers: There are a tenthousands of girls and women becoming pregnant every year after having been raped. If you deny them the right to abort, you expose them to extreme mental and physical cruelty. The lone fact that a criminal injected his little copulatory organ into that girl makes the result of this act so protectable in your eyes that you deny the girl the right to say "I don't wanna have anything of that please!". I don't get it and I'm afraid I never will.

I've answered this question again and again, but because my answer didnt help you, I will answer it again... Is it the child's fault that some sick freak of a human being decided to go against a womans will and have sex with her? Should the body and soul of this child growing in this woman's womb be destroyed because of that sin? My personal belief, (as I am sure almost everyone on this board is well aware of after one particular thread), is that abortion is wrong in any case, no matter what happens. I think in the case of rape, a tough situation is definitely in front of the woman; however, I think there are options other than murder, (and in my beliefs, despite the drivel of "ITS NOT A HUMAN YET, ITS ONLY A FETUS," I believe once the chain of life is started, a soul is in play, which should never be killed). Those options can be having it and loving it because it is part of you, or giving it up for adoption...

Murder, despite the circumstances, is murder, and should never be allowed by anyone... After all, how can the choice ONLY be the womans... If we are going to use the PRO choice theory, we must consider that the child is 50% woman and 50% man... In this scenario, what if the woman wanted it and the man didnt... Shouldnt the man have the right to jab the woman a few times to ensure proper death of the FETUS???

Absolute drivel!

[mavsman]

If a woman is raped, the only right she should have is to have the baby ...

Genius. Nuff said.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: mavsman

Genius. Nuff said.

Way to quote me out of context. If you'd read the rest of the post it'd make a little more sense.

[mavsman]

Want to know why I quote you out of context? Well, a very good friend of mine and his wife planned on having a baby. So she didn't take the pill anymore and some fine day, she was gangraped by a bunch of juvenile assholes. Became pregnant. From what I read in this and the neighboring thread, I know that you and your peers would be happy to accept the "new life", and I really don't wish that your loved one will ever be raped, humiliated and made pregnant, but things like that tend to happen. I hope you're preparing to raise the child that could've been yours but is in fact a gangmember's breed, but you just have to love it, because, after all... it's alive, no matter how anybody else feels.

[PlanoJ]

Honest question here: what exactly is the medical difference between the pill and the morning after pill. What makes one morally OK and other not?

[dude1394]

For someone who believes that life begins at conception (like john kerry) the difference is killing a human being versus preventing one from being created. I would think that neither sperm nor egg can by themselves grow into a human being. I'm actually surprised you ask the question, it seems pretty obvious, why do you ask it?

[PlanoJ]

No I was asking what is the physical, chemical difference between the two. I think the morning after pill flushes the woman's system somehow, and from my understanding its unpleasent. Many people see it as an early form of abortion. The birth control pill I know regulates the cycle and stuff but I don't know how it actually prevents pregnancy. Why do pro-lifers attack the morning after pill and are ok with birth control and condoms. I just wanted to know what the difference is.

[dude1394]

I thought the morning after pill caused a mis-carriage. But this link says

How does the postcoital pill work?
The hormones in the PCP may stop an egg from being released. Or they may stop a fertilised egg from implanting itself in the womb.

morning after pill

It looks like pro-lifers would object to the stopping of a fertilized egg (a life as it were) from implanting itself in the mothers womb.