1
   

FDA's Reproductive Health and the religious right

 
 
Post: # 96,245
View Profile blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2003 10:16 am
Tres

There is really no question that the right dished it out to Clinton with a zest and fullness unmatched in US political history. Had that not been the case, you and NH could argue that Bush should be treated differently, but it wasn't, and you can't. He gets no pass.

But he shouldn't get one anyway. No elected official should. The citizen's job to speak his/her mind and work towards policies they think ought to be in place. If they think a politician has an agenda which he is not being forthright concerning, then it's fine to argue against such.
0 Replies
 
Post: # 96,247
View Profile New Haven
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2003 10:19 am
I would advise a search of the International Legal literature on the role of China in controling the reproductive rights ( relative to gender of newborn) of women.
0 Replies
 
Post: # 96,249
View Profile littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2003 10:20 am
I know that China has a shadey record. Why don't you provide the burden of proof, NH.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2003 10:54 am
Blatham - Very Happy Howdy, neighbor! Good to hear from you. Very Happy

I think you're reading something into what I wrote, though I'm sure it was not intentional. I don't recall asking anyone to give Bush a pass. I believe I was commenting on those who wished, and continue to wish, to give Clinton one. I personally don't waste my time bashing either of them. I like to stick to more useful exchanges.

The problem I think we run into here from time to time is that you think I'm sticking up for someone, when I'm really trying to stick up for something: the truth, logic, reasonableness. (All of course only as I see them.)

So in this case, I do think it completely appropriate to discuss Bush's or Clinton's records and positions on abortion, I don't think it's right or even useful to talk about Clinton's zipper or whether Bush looks like a chimp. I don't think Clinton is off-limits because he's no longer president, nor do I think Bush is off-limits by virtue of still holding the office.

I guess it really comes down to why you're here. When I see people call Bush or Clinton or anyone names, I come to the conclusion that they aren't really interested in discussing anything; I assume they just came here hoping to show other people with whom they agree how clever they are. (And that's not a slap at any one person or group. My dislike for such antics is decidedly non-partisan.)
0 Replies
 
Post: # 96,293
View Profile blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2003 10:57 am
Tres

Then, we are in agreement.
0 Replies
 
Post: # 98,154
View Profile littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2003 11:18 pm
Crikey......

Bringing this back to the top of the list to see if I can get anymore discussion. Can we try not to bash either Bush or Clinton?
0 Replies
 
Post: # 109,623
View Profile littlek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 06:52 pm
So, has eveyone who wants to acted on this stuff yet?
0 Replies
 
Post: # 109,876
View Profile Diane
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 10:33 pm
Checking in. Too angry and depressed to post anything intelligent.
0 Replies
 
Post: # 109,889
View Profile dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 10:58 pm
the current administrations policy regrading womens reproductive rights amount to legalized rape by the state.
0 Replies
 
Post: # 110,048
View Profile blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2003 06:57 am
Quote:
Mr. Bush is, for example, outraged at the way the Chinese government sometimes forces peasants to have abortions. Fair enough. But his solution was to cut off all $34 million in U.S. funding for the United Nations Population Fund, leading to the cancellation of programs in Africa to train midwives, fight AIDS and help pregnant women. The upshot is that women and babies are dying in Africa because of Mr. Bush's idealism.

Many conservatives are deeply sincere in their revulsion for abortion. But they have blindly pursued moralistic policies — like cutting funds for family planning, undermining sex education and stigmatizing condoms — that lead to more abortions. The U.N. estimates that cutting the money for the Population Fund will lead to 800,000 more abortions per year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/opinion/18KRIS.html
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2003 11:52 am
Diane wrote:
Checking in. Too angry and depressed to post anything intelligent.

Well, at least you recognize it. :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
Obama..... not religious? - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
Copyright © 2009 Horizontal Verticals :: Page generated in 0.4 seconds on 11/28/2009 at 11:20:42 Top End