Does President Bush back pharmacists and doctors who forbid filling and prescribing the Pill, being an improbable abortifacient?
Of what possible value is your rant to this discussion?Is Bush not only "Pro-Life" but also a believer of personhood at conception? I guess that's to make up for all those body-bagged back in Baghdad. "Onward Christian soldiers!" (as long as they're the working poor
true BUT he has the same sex hangupsruss_watters said:I'm pretty sure Bush isn't Catholic.
Your argument would be more reasonable if you laid off the emotionally-loaded language. Why not post a reasonable argument? For example, the idea that Bush sent soldiers to die is absurd. I am sure he must have had other reasons to send soliders to Iraq other than to simply die.JohnDubYa, I attempted to express my anger over the hypocrisy by those who claim to be pro-life for zygotes, yet callously send people to suffer their deaths in a contrived slaughter over materialism in Iraq.
I fail to see how Bush is trying to win Iraq back for Christianity. Again, you use a very poor analogy.The reference to the Crusades denotes that we have been fighting basically the same bloodbath for millennia, to end in Armageddon (which our president may believe to be his legacy).
I don't recall any zygotes murdering hundreds of thousands of Shi'ias and Kurds. I don't recall any zygotes snubbing their nose at UN resolutions. If there ever was a zygote that did such reprehensible actions, I am sure George W. would be in favor of killing it.Bush is against furthering stem cell research, yet culls those in the prime of life for the war in Iraq. He spends more resources trying not to lose face there and forces our ideals of democracy upon their majority.
look up jerry foulwell, BuSh2's 'POPE" on sexJohnDubYa said:ray, I don't even think the most hard-core Christians consider sex evil. Now pre-marital sex, sure.
Do you have any quotes from Bush that back your statement that he considers sex evil?
Proving it would be the best thing, but come on, would it be absurd to assume that Bush is anti-birth control? This is probably old news to you guys but it is widely known that Bush is a born again evangelical. One of the main characteristics of an evangelical is that they believe the Bible is the ultimate authority, period. To an evangelical the Bible is INFALLIBLE! Now I believe that this belief represents a huge gaffe, and a serious deficiency in objective and logical thinking, but that is for another thread. The point is this: If you accept that Bush is an evangelical, the new question is what does the Bible have to say about birth control. Without being a theologian I can guess that somewhere within the good book it condemns it.if you want to claim that he's anti-birth control, all you have to do is prove it.
"Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).
The site mentions that the Bible has little information about birth control because it is so obviously wrong. So now I guess the question is do you think Bush is an evangelical?Deuteronomy 23:1 condemns birth control by sterilization: "He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord."
JohnDubYa,Bush is against furthering stem cell research, yet culls those in the prime of life for the war in Iraq. He spends more resources trying not to lose face there and forces our ideals of democracy upon their majority.
You overlook a thousand dead American servicemen, whose lives were less protected by questionable Bush policy than fertilized eggs.I don't recall any zygotes murdering hundreds of thousands of Shi'ias and Kurds. I don't recall any zygotes snubbing their nose at UN resolutions. If there ever was a zygote that did such reprehensible actions, I am sure George W. would be in favor of killing it.
I think you are under the impression that an anti-abortionist can never send troops into battle. But evangelical Christians are not necessarily pacifists. Obviously they must think that the unavoidable deaths of US servicemen is understandable if the cause is sufficiently just. Bush is not a Quaker.You overlook a thousand dead American servicemen, whose lives were less protected by questionable Bush policy than fertilized eggs.
I dunno. I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. But I can guess as to what they MIGHT say:Assume that birth control pills can rarely cause an "abortion" of a primitive blastula. What other myriad abortifacient substances should also be banned, as a result of extending the fundamentalist pro-life logic? How is unprofessional use of these more dangerous drugs justified by those forcing out most effective, safe and well used contraceptives? Back to the chemical coathanger.
Well, okay. But I fail to see why the safety of The Pill would influence their opinion. To them, a safe sin is probably not much better than a dangerous sin. And I don't think that using extortion techniques ("If you oppose our use of safe contraceptives, we'll use dangerous ones!") is going to sway their opinions.The standard of efficacy and safety which the Pill established is rarely surpassed among all other pharmacopeia. If the repeal of Roe vs Wade is controversial, what would the denial of oral contraceptives bring? The fundamentalists are wringing their hands.
And this is the kind of misleading reasoning that I think makes it difficult to discuss this subject honestly. You are making it out that there was a few million barrels of oil sitting out in the desert, and Bush sent soldiers into Iraq to steal the barrels, knowing that over a thousand would die. You completely ignore Saddam's butchery, which had to weigh in on Bush' decision in some way. You also ignore the WMD issue, and the devestating effect of the UN sanctions.Thanks for your good faith attempt at balanced responses, JohnDubYa. I guess my main concern is the seeming hypocritically disparate "values" of our president. Which is preferred policy - a slim chance of preserving the existence of a zygote, or saving the life of our youth from a very questionable war in Iraq?
On these issues, it seems that Bush would rather support his deadly crusade for oil than hold a more reasonable view on contraception.
Bush' religious beliefs are not mere "stances." This isn't "Tastes great! Less filling!"I support peaceful energy conservation over a papal-like stance on the definition of life. The question remains: how does one consistantly respect life as the leader of the United States?
Evangelical ethic of world supremacy? Many of my family members were Pentacostals -- about as Fundamentalist as they get --- and I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are referring to missionary work, then you are wrong on two accounts: (1) evangelicals do not advocate violence to spread the word of Jesus Christ, and (2) I see no evidence that Bush is even trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.I think Bush less evil or uncaring than misled, especially by the evangelical ethic of world supremacy.
We have hashed this over many times in this forum. Suffice to say that North Korea is not Iraq. North Korea has China as a strong ally and is located in a more formidable location than Iraq. Furthermore, attacking North Korea would compromise Japan's position.I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, harboring a proven, direct menace to the United States. Give me some idea why he chose to attack Iraq rather than say North Korea, whose atomic weapons may soon be sold to terrorists.
But that is another issue entirely. We were talking originally about Bush' supposed disregard for human life, and now you are questioning his wisdom.I back allied troops now in their struggle for a resolution to the Iraq conflict, but I criticize our president for his "caution to the wind" approach when not considering the voices of worldwide Islam.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Do you want to be that assassin? Do you know what the Iraqis would do to anyone that even tries to assassinate Saddam Hussein. (Hint: Shred-o-matic)Saddam's butchery? Send in an assassin.
Have you established his philosophy yet? I thought that was in question.Aside: Do you think Bush would win over an electorate who actually knew of his basic philosophy denying any reproductive privacy a woman might have, and lived without the fear of an impending repeat attack threatened by his lieutenant?
I listen to Christian counseling on the radio most every night, and their main objective is to convert unbelievers, reflected also in their commercials. I am fairly sure this is the main effort of most conservative Christians, to "save" nonbelievers through ensuring worldwide their belief that Christ is their Saviour, ultimately through Armageddon.I think Bush less evil or uncaring than misled, especially by the evangelical ethic of world supremacy.
So we wage war on all those who commit genocide but do not have nuclear capability? The continent of black Africa is wide open, but we have made ineffective inroads to the millions killed there. Two major selfish reasons for attacking Iraq: oil and Israel. The former is our addiction through wasteful usage in, e. g., SUVs and huge houses, and the latter with a government who spies on us and have killed scores of our sailors. Perhaps we should question the motives involving billions of dollars annually wasted through these money sinks.Your solution to Saddam's butchery is simplistic and completely unworkable. So we are back to square one: What to do about Saddam and his habit of killing thousands of people on a regular basis.