after veto-ing embryonic stem cell research on the grounds that he did not want embryos “killed” for research, he is stating that it is OK for minors to abort an embryo, as long as they have a Rx for it.
as stated in the article, it seems very inconsistent.
1. what reasons are there for veto-ing one and not the other?
2. what is the difference in these two situations?
right-o. i don’t believe that the article ever states he outlawed it. the point of the post, though, is to question the underlying issues, not the methods used. which are:
#1: he stopped the people that he had authority over (via federal funding) from using embryos. #2: he implies his agreement/approval/concent to minors aborting embryos.
there is an apparent contradiction happening here. that of doing everything in his power to stop the use of embryos, and from his point of view, save them. and then his agreement to the ability of minors to abort them.
am i the only one that sees this as a contradiction???
bishop - it’s called “politics”. Absolute consistency is possible in a dictatorship, which is why we like them in other countries, but not in our own. Perhaps you should try to convince all voters to vote one way. It would be consistent, and more useful than pointing out that politicians often must please differing factions within society - one “faction” sometimes being the Supreme Court and the Founding Fathers. While I admire Saddam Hussein’s intellectual integrity and firm stance on his own principles (evident in his latest trial), I wouldn’t want to live under his rule. Even philosopher kings are kings, and not presidents.
absolute consistency is possible with strong principles. it’s called character.
blowing off a change in an ideal such as this one, if this is as it seems, by saying “its politics” is more of an excuse than a valid reason. how many of a man’s core principles/beliefs do they allow to be changed be “factions?” to my understanding, abortion has been one of Bush’s core beliefs. are you suggesting that he been ‘bought’ by a pro-abortion faction? if so, can we trust someone that sways on core issues?
he cannot create an arbitrary law stating that two people of the same sex cannot be married, yet that has not altered his statements to the effect that gay marriage should not be allowed at all. this is obviously one of his strong principle issues which he has adherred to.
likewise, his only veto in office has come from his desire to “save” embryos from research. yet he offered not a single word opposed to the idea of abortion. both concerning the potential life of an embryo. one he used a very powerful executive right against, and the other he ok’s with a Rx.
Bishop - if I believed in God, I would pray to him to deliver me from politicians with strong values. There is great power in personal integrity, great power in sticking to one’s principles. That power is so great as to be truly worthy of fear. Fear them I would, and fear them I do.
My preference is that none of these people believe in any “ideal”. Because "ideals’ aren’t real, and people are. I don’t want to do the bidding of anyone who has “core beliefs” - I want these politicians to do my bidding. Everyone else does, too. That’s why we invented politics. “Playing politics” is a dirty word to ideologues. But it’s what we pay them to do. I can trust the devil to take my soul if he gets a chance. Trust is over-rated.
It’s just not about principles - it’s about people.
That’s my view. We will have to agreee to disagree, I think.
In a better world be wouldn’t even use the phrase “our leaders.” Truly they should be “our representatives.” Of course, they can’t just start randomly dialing the phone #'s of citizens every time a decision must be made- they must exercise some initiative. But they should follow as much as lead, I think. On the whole I’ve seen nothing in my 38 years that leads me to think they have some secret reservoir of wisdom that we common folk don’t have.