Bush declares National Sanctity of Human Life Day

[esskreemr]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060120-5.html

Our Nation was founded on the belief that every human being has rights, dignity, and value. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, we underscore our commitment to building a culture of life where all individuals are welcomed in life and protected in law.

America is making great strides in our efforts to protect human life. One of my first actions as President was to sign an order banning the use of taxpayer money on programs that promote abortion overseas. Over the past 5 years, I also have been proud to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and a ban on partial-birth abortion. In addition, my Administration continues to fund abstinence and adoption programs and numerous faith-based and community initiatives that support these efforts.

When we seek to advance science and improve our lives, we must always preserve human dignity and remember that human life is a gift from our Creator. We must not sanction the creation of life only to destroy it. America must pursue the tremendous possibilities of medicine and research and at the same time remain an ethical and compassionate society.

National Sanctity of Human Life Day is an opportunity to strengthen our resolve in creating a society where every life has meaning and our most vulnerable members are protected and defended including unborn children, the sick and dying, and persons with disabilities and birth defects. This is an ideal that appeals to the noblest and most generous instincts within us, and this is the America we will achieve by working together.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Sunday, January 22, 2006, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to reaffirm our commitment to respecting and defending the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth.

GEORGE W. BUSH

[Epee_Pox]

How is this routine proclamation any more noteworthy or (as I infer from your general purpose in such posts) nefarious than these: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/proclamations/

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

How is this routine proclamation any more noteworthy or (as I infer from your general purpose in such posts) nefarious than these: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/proclamations/

From looking at that site, I've seen a scandal!

When something is "National ______ Month," it's not exclusive for that Month.

November 2005 was National Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month, National Adoption Month, National Diabetes Month, National Hospice Month, National American Indian Heritage Month and National Family Caregivers Month.

Kind of cheapens the concept. I say we impeach Bush. One month should only be for one thing.

So--November should have been National Adopted Indian with Alzheimer's and Diabetes in a Hospice or Receiving Care from Families Month.

Much better.

--Philistine

[JackOfHearts]

No reference to birth control or the education thereof. I am dissapointed.

[Amadeus]

and in one letter, bush sums up nearly everything i find wrong with his presidency

(namely, the extremely conservative birth control and abortion opinions and the religion that keeps coming up in his speechs and opinions)

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by JackOfHearts

No reference to birth control or the education thereof. I am dissapointed.

Oh, you missed this part then:

In addition, my Administration continues to fund abstinence and adoption programs and numerous faith-based and community initiatives that support these efforts.

[Inquartata]

So you'd prefer a man with no firmly held beliefs? Or just one that would not act on them?

I don't care for the religious right's moralizing myself, and I am pro-choice, but honestly, how can you fault a person for acting on their convictions?

[JackOfHearts]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Oh, you missed this part then:

Let me rephrase:No mention of Birth control options that people would actually USE!

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

So you'd prefer a man with no firmly held beliefs? Or just one that would not act on them?

I don't care for the religious right's moralizing myself, and I am pro-choice, but honestly, how can you fault a person for acting on their convictions?

And I will hearby end the thread....

Hitler had firm beliefs. Do you fault him for his strong convictions? Do you fault him for acting on these convictions?

[Inquartata]

Godwin's Law doesn't imply the end of threads, only that the violators has forefeited the argument...

In this case, it's also rather a bit of a straw man.

[YankeeRebel]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Hitler had firm beliefs. Do you fault him for his strong convictions? Do you fault him for acting on these conviction.

But Achilleus does have a good point. Just because a belief is "firmly held" doesn't make it a good belief or a correct belief. Adhereing to a bad or wrong belief may be a sign of conviction, but it is hardly an indicator of virtue.

[Inquartata]

No. But one doesn't elect leaders to sit around dithering. One elects them to do things. Until we can get leaders who will only do what a voter referendum says we want them to do despite what they themselves believe, we elect them on the basis of their convictions, and expect them to act accordingly, no?

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

No. But one doesn't elect leaders to sit around dithering. One elects them to do things. Until we can get leaders who will only do what a voter referendum says we want them to do despite what they themselves believe, we elect them on the basis of their convictions, and expect them to act accordingly, no?

Sadly, I just got an image of Bush sitting there for 7 min. on 9/11.

While leaders are not always elected on their convictions, one has to ask which convictions (if any) got them elected? Was Bush given a 'mandate from the people' to make abortion illegal? Or was he elected because people believed he could keep them safe from terrorists? Or did he get elected because people thought Kerry was indecisive?

Most likely it was a combination of these, but the last two, seem to be the driving force behind his win. The last two have little to do with his convictions...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by achilleus

While leaders are not always elected on their convictions, one has to ask which convictions (if any) got them elected?

As many as there are voters, probably.

I for instance voted for him because of what I imagined were his fiscally conservative intentions ( hah! ), and his economic platform, eg tax cuts, business focus, trade, etc. I was not enthralled by his social beliefs, but no candidate is ever a perfect match for one's wishes.

I have no doubt that there were a lot of people who voted for him BECAUSE of his social convictions. The religious right seems to have gotten much of what they wanted in him. His pro-life views are on display in the proclamation under discussion, and pro-life constituencies are no doubt as pleased as others are disgruntled that he seems to be translating his views into policy. That is what democratic politics is about, no? The majority gets what it wants.

Would Democrats care for the idea of a liberal President who only gave lip service to the liberal social agenda and did nothing to pass policy initiatives based upon it? If they would not be satisfied with a do-nothing Democratic President who eschewed displeasing those who didn't vote for him, why should they ask a Republican President not to displease THEM with policy choices?

My initial question was "Why don't you like Bush's actions?", but rather "Why shouldn't Bush act on his convictions and work to do what he told voters he was going to try to do?".

Is it really controversial that a pro-life President elected by a largely pro-life constituency would act in a pro-life manner and advance a pro-life agenda?

There are many reasons to dislike Bush, but really, is this one of them?!

Was Bush given a 'mandate from the people' to make abortion illegal?

Not in my opinion, but he may believe differently, in which case it is hard to fault him for following his own stars. ( We have, or are supposed to have, a balance of power to make it difficult for him. )

Or was he elected because people believed he could keep them safe from terrorists?

I can only speak to the first time around, as I held my nose and voted for Kerry last time. The first term was definitely NOT a plebiscite on terrorism protection.

Or did he get elected because people thought Kerry was indecisive?

Not of itself. There were a wide spectrum of reasons. But the religious right is widely thought to have played a pivotal role in his re-election. And for the religious right, abortion is the 800-pound gorilla....

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

As many as there are voters, probably.

I for instance voted for him because of what I imagined were his fiscally conservative intentions ( hah! ), and his economic platform, eg tax cuts, business focus, trade, etc. I was not enthralled by his social beliefs, but no candidate is ever a perfect match for one's wishes.

And I think this is the issue. Leaders are not elected for their convictions or beliefs but what the voters believe their convictions are. We are all familiar with campaing promises...

Originally Posted by Inquartata

My initial question was "Why don't you like Bush's actions?", but rather "Why shouldn't Bush act on his convictions and work to do what he told voters he was going to try to do?".

Did Bush ever say he was going to actively work to change the laws on abortion? I must have missed that (entirely possibly). I'm thought he stayed away from the topic altogether, with the dems bringing it up (to no avail)...

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Is it really controversial that a pro-life President elected by a largely pro-life constituency would act in a pro-life manner and advance a pro-life agenda?

Controversial? No. Never said it was controversial, but that doesn't make it a good thing, or something I like.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

There are many reasons to dislike Bush, but really, is this one of them?!

Why not? If I dislike Bush's social policies, then this is a reason to dislike him. I mean, it's not like I know Bush personally, or am judging my like or dislike of him personally. I'm basing my judgments on his actions. Actions like this, make me dislike him as president. You can argue till your blue in the face, and my mind won't change. I dislike him as president, and I feel he's doing a horrible job, and this is but one aspect where I feel he sucks.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by JackOfHearts

No reference to birth control or the education thereof. I am dissapointed.

being disappointed implies that you expected such a reference...

you didn't, did you?

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

So you'd prefer a man with no firmly held beliefs? Or just one that would not act on them?

I don't care for the religious right's moralizing myself, and I am pro-choice, but honestly, how can you fault a person for acting on their convictions?

quite easily when there are numerous credible scientific studies showing the negative effects of acting on those convictions (in this case that "abstinence only" education leads to no drop in rates of sexual activity, but does lead to a marked drop in "safe" sex).

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by achilleus

And I think this is the issue. Leaders are not elected for their convictions or beliefs but what the voters believe their convictions are. We are all familiar with campaing promises...

In this case, a distinction without a difference, I think, because his stated position on abortion has pretty closely mirrored the position most people believe he holds ( and held ).

http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm

Did Bush ever say he was going to actively work to change the laws on abortion?

I thought we were discussing his proclamation of a Sanctity of Life Day, not an attempt to pass a law.

However, see his statement above for delineation of his avowed intentions regarding laws limiting abortion.

( In all honesty, I had to go look that up, because I hadn't remembered him committing himself to specific actions, either. )

If I dislike Bush's social policies, then this is a reason to dislike him.

Why? I still don't understand. Disliking his policies and thinking, sure. Disagreeing with his beliefs and disliking him because of them, OK. But disliking him for acting according to his convictions? For following a moral compass? That I don't get.

I may have disliked Clinton's views and convictions, and the outcomes of his acting on them, but I could hardly fault him for the practice of acting on them...that's what any human being is expected to do, isn't it?