now about 10 thousand innocent babies a year will see life , while under clinton , they were sentenced to death . i think that outweighs the war , dont you ?
2007-06-23 10:25:25 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
What would make you ask this question? I honestly perplexed that you can make a connection between these two. Honestly, comparing a bill that bans partial birth abortions to our invasion in Iraq is asinine. They have absolutely positively nothing to do with each other.
If you still feel so strongly that what Bush is so much of a better person than Clinton, and the two events are related, ask yourself this question. Go up to two women who were pregnant at one time. The first should have given birth and lost her son to the war in Iraq. The second had a partial birth abortion because she realized that she would be an awful mother to that child and didn't want to bring them into this world. Ask each of them who the better person is.
Comparing these two isn't comparing apples to oranges, it comparing apples to rocks.
Since you're probably going to question my political affiliation, I'm neither a republican or a democrat. I could care less what someone's political orientation is, I only care about how they can make America better.
2007-06-23 10:46:04 · answer #1 · answered by Tony O 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush!
If I were you I wouldn't be talking about people being sentenced to death, and that includes those brought back in body bags from Iraq!
What Bush did was to sentence mother's, who are alive, to death as he gives more importance to a fetus than the right to a mother of having at least a choice between living and dieing! The Mother is alive and breathing, a fetus is not!
Congratulations! I noticed you failed to mention those who would die if a late term termination wasn't performed! They don't count to you, do they?
How you compare 3,836 murdered in Iraq, 25 in the past 4 days, who are usually in their early 20's with a fetus is as a bazare statement I have ever heard! It is degrading to those who gave their lives!
"Hopefully, the Supreme Court will recognize that partial-birth abortions are not procedures that happen as often as overreacting proponents of the bill would have the public believe. In truth, they are making a gigantic, hot button issue out of a very small slice of the abortion conflict — one that is entirely a medical issue being perverted by ideology. Doctors must do unpleasant things all the time to save lives, and this uncommon procedure is designed to save the life of the woman. There is no clause in the bill that will soon head to President Bush that defends the health and safety of the woman herself. This is a small issue, easy to attack because it might ensure a victory — any victory — for anti-abortionists. It is a thinly-veiled attempt to get people to think of all abortions in a similar manner as the grotesque nature of terminating late-in-term pregnancies, with no regard for the safety of the women themselves.
It is absurd to think that the government — not patients and their doctors —would have the power to standardize when, if ever, a woman could undergo this procedure if she so desires, especially given that the majority of partial-birth abortions are performed for medical reasons. If a woman is going to have an abortion, chances are she is not going to wait around for months to decide as a baby grows inside her. Late-in-term pregnancy terminations happen almost always because of medical complications and concerns for the woman’s own safety."
2007-06-23 17:37:15 · answer #2 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush is the better man. Abortion is so wrong. I dont think people who are pro choice respect life. I mean just think about it. What if an aborted baby was supposed to cure cancer or aids? Every life is valuable and I pray for the innocent babies who have lost their lives at the mercy of their selfish parents.
2007-06-23 21:54:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
OK.... let's leave out the facts about the situation.. neither bill that landed on Clinton's desk had any kind of exception for medical reasons... the one that landed on Bush's desk did... Clinton said many times that he would have passed the bill if it had any exception for Medical problems..The one that Bush passed did have one... so that is Congress not either President
2007-06-23 17:31:37 · answer #4 · answered by katjha2005 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What???
You can't be serious with this question.
Bush did based on his "morals" which are questionable at best.
I hate Bush...but this is actually one thing that he did right.
2007-06-23 17:28:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋