Last Updated: Tuesday, 22 January 2008, 22:16 GMT

 

Bush supports anti-abortion rally

By Vincent Dowd

BBC News, Washington

 

President George W Bush has restated his personal opposition to abortion on the 35th anniversary of its legalisation in the US.

 

Mr Bush was speaking before thousands of anti-abortion activists attended a March For Life rally in Washington.

 

"You're here because you know that all life deserves to be protected... I'm proud to be standing with you," Mr Bush said to organisers of the annual march.

 

There are an estimated 1.2 million abortions in America annually.

 

White House invitation

 

On 22 January 1973, the US Supreme Court legalised abortion in America when it ruled on the Roe versus Wade case.

In that case the court decided under the constitution individual states did not have the right to prevent abortion.

 

Each year there is a well-attended March for Life rally in Washington to urge the Supreme Court to overturn its ruling.

Campaigners hope a court which has become more conservative under Mr Bush is more likely now one day to do that.

Mr Bush invited 200 of the marchers to the White House to offer his support. He said each unborn child was a separate individual with his or her own genetic code.

 

"America is better than this, so we will continue to work for a culture of life," he said. A taped version was broadcast to other demonstrators later.

 

Abortion reform has not featured large in the current campaign for the presidency but it retains the potential to become an issue.

 

Of the Republicans only the former New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, does not want to overturn the Roe versus Wade ruling - and this has alienated some in his party.

 

Any Comments on the US President's opinion on this matter?

 

 

 

Does he even know what he's supporting I wonder.. :lol:

Good to see he is concerned about the sanctity of life, I mean it's not like he's been responsible for any deaths has he.

How surprising! He probably only supports anti-abortion campaigns so there will be more people that can be sent off for his lost cause of a war.

Well, this isn't really surprising, every Republican is against abortion. Except for GWB thinks God is giving him messages. :wacko:

 

Republicans know if they can't satisfy the evangelical fundamentalist voters in the South their chance at winning the 2008 election is close to none. Bush doesn't want to disappoint.

 

Republican summary:

Against Abortion

For Death Penalty

Against Immigration

Against Gay Rights

Against Euthanasia

For Gun Ownership

 

 

 

How surprising! He probably only supports anti-abortion campaigns so there will be more people that can be sent off for his lost cause of a war.

 

well said Tyler... and NRS11, too.... Bush is like his father - nothing more than a gibbering, ill-educated, ill-informed idiot - thank the Lord he's on his way out.

Good to see he is concerned about the sanctity of life, I mean it's not like he's been responsible for any deaths has he.

 

Spot on Bri, and also Tyler... This illustrates the absolute hypocrisy of people like Dubya Bush.... When he was Governor, he certainly did not give a damn about the "sanctitiy of life" when he was sending people to the electric chair, so...... And of course, the "small" matter of the 30,000 innocent Iraqis he slaughtered during the two nights of "shock and awe"..... Bush says "all life deserves to be protected".... Coming from him, that is just an extremely poor joke, a bit like Osama Bin Laden turning up to a Bar Mitzvah.....

 

I think Dubya should think long and hard before supporting something he's unable to even spell, don't you? :P

its all been most eloquently said!

Aborption is nothing but killing a baby, it´s wrong not because it´s ilegal but because it´s coward and imoral. But I see a big contradition in GWB for being against aborption and pro-death penalty...

...nonsense... so you think bringing a child into the world when you simply do NOT want it is better for that child, do you? Aren't there enough unloved, unwanted kids on the streets already? Enough parents without a care in the world for these kids? And yet, for some bizarre reason - you'd happily inflict MORE of these unwanted people on the world - just because you think a foetus, not unlike other 'living' things in our body - like cancer, like warts, like hair follicles - is somehow 'alive'?

 

Or is it because religion dictates to you that these 'alive' foetuses are, somehow, a 'life' already?

 

If this is the case... how many funerals have you been to for supposedly 'alive' foetuses that simply die and end up down a toilet? Would you scoop this 'life' from the pan and treat it like a normal, 'born' human? Full funeral honours, obituary and 3 weeks-solid mourning?

 

Of course you wouldn't.

 

'Immoral' - oh what a crass, pathetic and simple word that is, indeed.

...nonsense... so you think bringing a child into the world when you simply do NOT want it is better for that child, do you? Aren't there enough unloved, unwanted kids on the streets already? Enough parents without a care in the world for these kids? And yet, for some bizarre reason - you'd happily inflict MORE of these unwanted people on the world - just because you think a foetus, not unlike other 'living' things in our body - like cancer, like warts, like hair follicles - is somehow 'alive'?

 

Or is it because religion dictates to you that these 'alive' foetuses are, somehow, a 'life' already?

 

If this is the case... how many funerals have you been to for supposedly 'alive' foetuses that simply die and end up down a toilet? Would you scoop this 'life' from the pan and treat it like a normal, 'born' human? Full funeral honours, obituary and 3 weeks-solid mourning?

 

Of course you wouldn't.

 

'Immoral' - oh what a crass, pathetic and simple word that is, indeed.

 

100% in agreement Russ... I particularly agree with the parts that I boldened.. This whole "anti-abortion" bullsh!t argument is based on nothing more than ridiculous religious voodoo, there is no credible medical expert in the land who would argue that 'life' begins at the moment of conception... 'Life' can only begin when the baby can draw breath for itself, until then, the foetus is a parasite living off the mother's body... No silly, irrational, "emotional" arguement will ever convince me otherwise....

 

And another thing, it's Pro-Life goons like Dubya that are standing in the way of vital, beneficial Stem Cell research and are demonising the intelligent, pioneering scientists who are leading this field... You want to talk about something that's amoral JJN, how about that....? How DARE these people stand in the way of medical progress and deny people possible cures for horrifying ailments such as Parkinsons, Alzheimers and other extremely nasty illnesses... This is what is truly amoral as far as I'm concerned, condemning real, living people to a half-life of misery and suffering purely on the back of some bullsh!t, anachronistic religious dogma.... <_<

 

Fukkin' Pro-Life tw@ts... What an utter contradiction in terms that is... This lot seem to genuinely believe that a bunch of unformed cells should have more Human Rights than actual living, breathing PEOPLE...... Morons.... <_<

The irony of the stem cell research debate is that, in 1980s America, its greatest enemy was Ronal Reagan - he campaigned tirelessly to prevent funding, set the whole programme back many, many years - in fact, if it weren't for his starving of cash for the research, we'd very likely be living in a world that isn't affected too much by Alzheimers etc. The research would be so much more advanced than it is today.

 

And.. what did Reagan suffer with in later life? Yep - Alzheimers.

 

And who, suddenly, decided to campaign on BEHALF of the researchers, deciding what they'd fought against in the 80s was now, all of a sudden when it suited them, ok?

 

Yep... none other than self-serving, self-righteous numbskull Nancy 'Sinatra' Regan, that's who.

...nonsense... so you think bringing a child into the world when you simply do NOT want it is better for that child, do you? Aren't there enough unloved, unwanted kids on the streets already? Enough parents without a care in the world for these kids? And yet, for some bizarre reason - you'd happily inflict MORE of these unwanted people on the world - just because you think a foetus, not unlike other 'living' things in our body - like cancer, like warts, like hair follicles - is somehow 'alive'?

 

Or is it because religion dictates to you that these 'alive' foetuses are, somehow, a 'life' already?

 

If this is the case... how many funerals have you been to for supposedly 'alive' foetuses that simply die and end up down a toilet? Would you scoop this 'life' from the pan and treat it like a normal, 'born' human? Full funeral honours, obituary and 3 weeks-solid mourning?

 

Of course you wouldn't.

 

'Immoral' - oh what a crass, pathetic and simple word that is, indeed.

 

No, it´s simply because of coerence... Have you ever seen a baby born of 6 or 7 months??? Killing one of these would be considered homicide, yet if they took a few more weeks on the womb and were killed then, it would be "just" an aborption... so be coerent, you think killing newborn babies should be legal? Lol, I can undestand why you don´t like the world "imoral" very much.

 

Have you ever met a woman who suffered natural aborption? I can guarantee they took much more then 3 weeks of morning... But it´s obvious then when someone CAUSES their death, there won´t be any mourning.

 

Obviously the suffering of an "unwanted" child is no serious excuse to kill it... otherwise we would be able to kill any suffering human being in the planet. It should be an easy way of ending aids and hunger. And still I don´t believe that an "unwanted" child won´t ever experience any happiness in life, and other stuff that use to make people think life is worth living. Poverty and disease are no excuses either... poor and ill people can be happy too. 3/4 of world population are poor and it´s not like they all want to die because of this, or consider themselves as "cancers".

 

With so many suffering, yet happy, people in the world, it´s sickening that some people consider eliminating a child because they don´t want to gain a few pounds or damage their professional career. It should be mentioned that there are easy ways of avoiding pregnancy...

 

It scares me that, with aborption being in the dumb "politically correct" agenda, and with the easiness of DNA exams, people will start aborptin everytime the foetus is detected with some deficiency or illness, to the point that babies are eliminated everytime they don´t have the wanted eye or skin colour, or the "right" type of hair, or celebrity looks... or maybe the "right" sexual preferences (as science evolves and maybe it becomes detectable on the child´s DNA)... Until we create the "perfect" race Hilter has dreamed.

 

 

 

100% in agreement Russ... I particularly agree with the parts that I boldened.. This whole "anti-abortion" bullsh!t argument is based on nothing more than ridiculous religious voodoo, there is no credible medical expert in the land who would argue that 'life' begins at the moment of conception... 'Life' can only begin when the baby can draw breath for itself, until then, the foetus is a parasite living off the mother's body... No silly, irrational, "emotional" arguement will ever convince me otherwise....

 

And another thing, it's Pro-Life goons like Dubya that are standing in the way of vital, beneficial Stem Cell research and are demonising the intelligent, pioneering scientists who are leading this field... You want to talk about something that's amoral JJN, how about that....? How DARE these people stand in the way of medical progress and deny people possible cures for horrifying ailments such as Parkinsons, Alzheimers and other extremely nasty illnesses... This is what is truly amoral as far as I'm concerned, condemning real, living people to a half-life of misery and suffering purely on the back of some bullsh!t, anachronistic religious dogma.... <_<

 

Fukkin' Pro-Life tw@ts... What an utter contradiction in terms that is... This lot seem to genuinely believe that a bunch of unformed cells should have more Human Rights than actual living, breathing PEOPLE...... Morons.... <_<

 

People with Parkinsons, Alzheimer???? We should just kill them... if they can stand on their own or survive in society without medical or artificial help, or have body misformations, then they are no "full human beings". People with respiratory diseases or mental illness too... people who can´t breath are not human beings lol... they are just "weight" to our society...

People with Parkinsons, Alzheimer???? We should just kill them... if they can stand on their own or survive in society without medical or artificial help, or have body misformations, then they are no "full human beings". People with respiratory diseases or mental illness too... people who can´t breath are not human beings lol... they are just "weight" to our society...

 

you're missing the point. Entirely.

 

A foetus is NOT a living being - as Scott says, it is merely a parasite in a woman's body - like a cancer, like a wart, like a cyst - all of which, like a foetus, have living organisms. A foetus becomes a human, living being when it draws breath - not before.

 

You speak of aborting a 7 month old child - when has a 7 month old baby been aborted? Less than 1% of ALL abortions are carried out on or after 20 weeks - and only then, usually, because the child is seriously deformed. Almost 90% of abortions take place before the 10-12 week stage, when the 'baby' is the size of a thumbnail - usually much smaller than your average cancer or wart.

 

As for keeping the unwanted, unloved kids in this world - you're talking religiously-correct claptrap - do you honestly believe keeping these kids, often born into a life of abuse, hate and neglect, is right? Because I don't - I'd rather see parents loving and nurturing their children, not keeping them because religion (which, let's be honest, is the very and only basis of your whole anti-abortion stance) TELLS them they HAVE to keep them or face the wrath of some 'higher' invisible being.

 

When you live in an ivory tower, and your viewpoints are clouded by something as surreal and irrelevant as religion, you can tend to lose sight of the REAL everyday problem unwanted, unloved kids have.... a place to live, something to eat, someone to love them.... whilst praying to some Lord or other may give you comfort and the indignant right to deem how others should live - I doubt very much whether your Bible would keep these poor kids fed, clothed and with a loving family environment.

. A foetus becomes a human, living being when it draws breath - not before.

 

hmm... im not so sure about that m8, i think foetuses are regarded as 'human' when they can survive outside the womb, isnt that why theres a cut off date for abortion? ok when its a featureless blob, but by 20 weeks or summut it can move, kick, its heart is beating, it has human form just in minature.

 

i guess its all down to where one draws the line between human and non human....

 

 

.... and trust me, they continue to be parasites AFTER they are born!

 

you're missing the point. Entirely.

 

A foetus is NOT a living being - as Scott says, it is merely a parasite in a woman's body - like a cancer, like a wart, like a cyst - all of which, like a foetus, have living organisms. A foetus becomes a human, living being when it draws breath - not before.

Thank you but I prefer serious scientific opinion then this ignorant myth... you seem to ignore the concept of a "living being" - go back to school. Breathing is not the criteria to define what´s a living being... a foetus has cells, nervous system, a heart beating - stuff that average rocks and other non living being don´t have. When I was a 7 year old child I learned that what makes a living being are cells with DNA on the inside. Something a foetus has since its first day - go back to school. I wasn´t even aware that size was a criteria to define a living being... the planet jupiter is a living being??? lol. Does a cancer or cyst has its own organs, nervous system, heart, circulatory system... and does it have a different and independent DNA code then the body where it´s inside?

 

As for keeping the unwanted, unloved kids in this world - you're talking religiously-correct claptrap - do you honestly believe keeping these kids, often born into a life of abuse, hate and neglect, is right?

Because I don't - I'd rather see parents loving and nurturing their children, not keeping them because religion (which, let's be honest, is the very and only basis of your whole anti-abortion stance) TELLS them they HAVE to keep them or face the wrath of some 'higher' invisible being.

Lol. Someone who ever fears a higher being enough to avoid aborption, will also avoid hate, neglect, and abuse even more... It´s funny how you link parents who aborpt their kids to abuse and hate. These are the people whose rights you are defending... lol.

 

When you live in an ivory tower, and your viewpoints are clouded by something as surreal and irrelevant as religion, you can tend to lose sight of the REAL everyday problem unwanted, unloved kids have.... a place to live, something to eat, someone to love them.... whilst praying to some Lord or other may give you comfort and the indignant right to deem how others should live - I doubt very much whether your Bible would keep these poor kids fed, clothed and with a loving family environment.

A book cannot feed and protect children... people who read books can. And believe me, they do, much more then you and some politically correct people and you empty atitudes.

jjn.... its ABORTION not 'aborption'...... theres no 'p' :)

What if someone was raped and got pregnant. Would you want to keep the baby knowing that the father is a monster???????