News Is Karen Hughes' Commentary on Reproductive Rights Justified?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RageSk8
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Karen Hughes, a former member of the Bush Administration, has sparked controversy with her comments linking the value of life post-9/11 to policies on abortion. Critics argue that her statements trivialize both the tragedy of 9/11 and the complex issue of reproductive rights. Hughes suggested that the American public now values life more and that President Bush's policies aim to reduce abortions and increase adoptions. This has led to accusations of her using a national tragedy for political gain, particularly against pro-choice advocates. Many participants in the discussion express outrage over her perceived elitism and hypocrisy, arguing that her comments are offensive and misrepresent the nuanced views surrounding abortion. The debate highlights the contentious intersection of political rhetoric and personal beliefs, especially in the context of women's rights and reproductive health.
RageSk8
Karen Hughes, formor member of the Bush Administration and currently working for Bush's reelection campaign, is dumb *****. I really dislike her (and no, not because http://quest.cjonline.com/images/121700/hughes.jpg). I dislike her because she is the personification of Republican spin.

She leaves the Bush administration to 'spend time with her family'. One year later she is promoting her book that explains why she left the Bush Administration (because her family was more important!) and working full time on Bush's reelection. She gets praised from stupid conservatives - no, I am not saying conservatives are stupid, just incase people do not read well - as "family oriented" when it is obvious she realized that being a housewife wasn't good enough for her (which is good, the spin is what gets me).

But this isn't enough for me to dislike the women. In fact, the above mini rant is actually incidental to something else - a side effect of my intense out rage over a very wrong, idiotic, and offensive statement she just made. Karen Hughes was interviewed about todays march for women's reproductive rights. This is what she said:

"I think that after September 11, the American people are valuing life more and we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life," she said. "President Bush has worked to say, let's be reasonable, let's work to value life, let's reduce the number of abortions, let's increase adoptions. And I think those are the kinds of policies the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy and, really, the fundamental issue between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life."

What?!?? Can you believe this? Ever since I read this everything about this women has angered me. Normally talking heads do not piss me off, but, for some reason, this women's comments did. Using 9-11 and terrorists to attack people marching for pro-choice views? What the hell if wrong with this women?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/25/15470/5398

note - the NY times edited Hughes's statements out of the article (it was there earlier today!). Her comments actually come from a CNN interview which can be found here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
She strikes me as an elitist of the type that would subscribe to the belief - 'We know what is best for the unsophisticated masses.'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
She's a thug, a lousy human being, and a liar...which makes her fit in perfectly with the Bushies and their supporters.
 
Zero said:
She's a thug, a lousy human being, and a liar...which makes her fit in perfectly with the Bushies and their supporters.
Leading by example I see...
 
phatmonky said:
Leading by example I see...
Off-topic. You know better.
 
Maybe Karen Hughes is calling the pro-choice advocates terrorists(?)

I find it very difficult to find the justification between 9-11 and abortion. To make a broad statement saying that everyone values life is premature. We value life in 9-11 because we were attacked deliberately, and most of the population would probably agree.

Abortion, however, is a completely different issue and most of the populace has split viewpoints and still remains a hotly debated topic.
 
motai said:
Maybe Karen Hughes is calling the pro-choice advocates terrorists(?)

I find it very difficult to find the justification between 9-11 and abortion. To make a broad statement saying that everyone values life is premature. We value life in 9-11 because we were attacked deliberately, and most of the population would probably agree.

Abortion, however, is a completely different issue and most of the populace has split viewpoints and still remains a hotly debated topic.
She's a cretin...she's linking terrorism to a legal and mostly publically-supported medical procedure. This does a disservice both to terrorism victims, their families, and those who seek and provide abortions.
 
So is she the left one or the right one?
 
  • #10
I can't believe that people get away with this bs. 1984 anyone?

"Of course the people don't want war... But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm)
...only now, it's attached to a domenstic political gain, not just war.

The fact that she can string together such unrelated things, and in such a manner, is utterly ridiculous. I am sick and tired of republican efforts to usurp the events of 9/11 as theirs and available for whatever political use they have for it.
 
  • #11
the fundamental issue between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life."
I think that this statement is untrue. Also, it is a clear attempt to link a personal agenda (anti-choice legislation) with an extremist politician. "We value every life" is 90% hypocritical if you're living on the business end of a JDAM. 100% hypocritical considering that the terrorist network is plenty active after 200 billion +/- taxpayer dough. She's a shill, a tool of the bush boys; they like women when they say what they're told to say... f**k
 
  • #12
I'm rather confident that they do not value at all the lives of terrorists (I'm not saying that they should, just that this contradicts her statement). Also, they did not show much value for the lives of the innocent Middle-Easterners that they killed in invasions.
 
  • #13
She sounds like every politician I know...
 
  • #14
I don't think that most politicians would try to link Al Queda to abortion.
 
  • #15
No, Al Queda waits until after you're born to murder you.
 
  • #16
...

"The government is a necessary evil that has no right to exist".

Quote by Robert Eric Moon, Math Dept Professor M.T.S.U.

gOVERnMENt

Quote from Fools Rush In, Murfreesboro, TN Album cover
 
  • #18
Hopefully Zero will delete Amp's vile link!
 
  • #19
Cool link, amp, very interesting to hear the British perspective:
The United States
A beacon of freedom and democracy in a troubled world or a self-interested nation on an accelerating slide towards fascism? Is George Bush's regime representative of the majority of the American people?
 
  • #20
Actually both posters on that link were Americans
 
  • #21
Bin Laden does make a good point. Nice link, Amp.

Zero, please don't take the link down.
 
  • #22
ShawnD said:
Bin Laden does make a good point.

Yeah, for a right winger he's getting real popular with the left lately.
 
  • #23
Thank you all. Schwarzschildradius, the quote in your post would be answered by most informed Americans in the negative but amongst those Americans dup...,.. er um excuse me, brainw... er, I mean mislead(*) by Bushco would on the other hand vote - yes (*) - People who believe the Bushco line about Iraq links to Al Queda, that Iraq has WMDs still ,

Whats so vile Geniere? There are at least two sides to any story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
Bin Laden never has given much of a damn about the Palestinians. They are much too secular for his fanatical tastes. The terrorism he directed against the US has always been in an attempt to drive the US out of Saudi Arabia. He pays lipservice to their cause at most.

Njorl
 
  • #25
hughes johnson said:
Yeah, for a right winger he's getting real popular with the left lately.

He is not popular with the left. He is a ridiculous ultra-right-winger.

However, that does not mean that we should not pay attention to what he is saying. It would be foolish not to. It is important to understand what people are saying and what their motivations are in such a situation. All-in-all, I don't think that what he's saying is all that different from what a lot of people here in the USA are saying...he's just on the opposite side.
 
  • #26
Dissident Dan said:
All-in-all, I don't think that what he's saying is all that different from what a lot of people here in the USA are saying...he's just on the opposite side.

The opposite side from what? He sounds like a democrat to me. I'm confused here, do you leftists like this rightwinger or what? You guys quote him more often than any of your other heroes.
 
  • #27
Opposite side as in he's the enemy. Just because he's your enemy doesn't mean you have to disagree with him on everything.
 
  • #28
hughes johnson said:
The opposite side from what? He sounds like a democrat to me. I'm confused here, do you leftists like this rightwinger or what? You guys quote him more often than any of your other heroes.
lol. if Osama is a Democrat, Hitler is chairman of the RNC.
 
  • #29
Hitler was a reactionary.
 
  • #30
hughes johnson said:
The opposite side from what? He sounds like a democrat to me. I'm confused here, do you leftists like this rightwinger or what? You guys quote him more often than any of your other heroes.

He reminds me of vindictive, socio-centric rightwingers--definitely not a Democrat. I do not like him. I look down upon the ultra-religious, those with bloodlust, and those who will kill because people from other groups are in their land.
 
  • #31
schwarzchildradius said:
lol. if Osama is a Democrat, Hitler is chairman of the RNC.

Hitler was a socialist. Nice try though.
 
  • #32
Bull! Hitler was as much as socialist as Bush is a conservative.
 
  • #33
Hughes, I'm curious. When did you leave your alternate universe and come to ours? You seem to have an entirely different history where you came from.

Njorl
 
  • #34
Well Nazi is short for the German phrase that means "National Socialism". And there used to be a joke that Hitler fulfilled every program in the Communist Manifesto and made May 1 a holiday besides.

Hitler's socialism, like Stalin's, was state/party capitalism.
 
  • #35
selfAdjoint said:
Well Nazi is short for the German phrase that means "National Socialism". And there used to be a joke that Hitler fulfilled every program in the Communist Manifesto and made May 1 a holiday besides.

Jump suit,
People in your universe should study a little German...and a little history too.
Good job selfAdjoint.
 
  • #36
Hitler was always a proponent of "the big lie". Nothing about his agenda was socialist. Is everyone named Johnson the son of someone named John? Names mean little, or nothing in this case.

Socialism is the redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor.

Facism, Hitlers poitical persuasion, is about the consolidation of unchecked power in an elite organization based on some unifying characteristic. When it suited the Nazis, capitalism thrived. When it did not, industries became nationalized.

I understand how the poorly educated mistake the nazis for communists - both rely on an elite, priveliged party, but to think that the nazis were socialists is just pathetic.

Njorl
 
  • #37
Njorl said:
Nothing about his agenda was socialist...industries became nationalized.

If you intend to disagree with yourself all the time, you should at least do it in two separate posts.
 
  • #38
Selective reader, that Hughes is (Quote from Yoda). Hughes, you didn't include 'When it suited the Nazis, capitalism ... when it did not...' Nothing contradictory about his statement.
 
  • #39
amp said:
Selective reader, that Hughes is (Quote from Yoda). Hughes, you didn't include 'When it suited the Nazis, capitalism ... when it did not...' Nothing contradictory about his statement.

Yes Hughes. Generally when dishonest hacks deceptively quote people out of context they don't do it directly beneath the full quote. You'll never be writing for The Washington Times if you can't do better than that.

Njorl
 
  • #40
ROTFL, for sure! Hughes seems to have a myoptic way of seeing. He only sees what he wants to and that when its in agreement with him. BTW, I'm not a democrat.
 
  • #41
Get back on track, folks.
 
  • #42
amp said:
Selective reader, that Hughes is (Quote from Yoda).


Zero is right, stay on track, besides, I believe you have quoted Yoda out of context here.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1K
Views
94K
Replies
88
Views
14K
Replies
64
Views
9K
Replies
238
Views
28K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Back
Top