and another thing
one issue voters, read this article. it seems abortions have increased statistically over the last four years.
posted by e at 12:56 PM
10.28.2004
About Me
- Name: e
- Location: Notre Dame, (what the hell am I doing in) Indiana
hi there! thank you for visiting the old, dark, brooding version of this blog. the new, bright, still-brooding version is at uscrewtape.wordpress.com
Previous Posts
- Why Africa is important (and what the US is doing ...
- Planes
- quote for today
- Our only Pro-Life option
- foiled again.
- halloween
- yep, there's a website for that
- not the best headline, but good news
- greta close up
- quote for today
3 Comments:
i must reiterate that it's a use of the word to call gwb "pro-life". i don't know that i'm getting through on this point.
as for this article...
it's written under three assumptions
~the bush admin. is to blame for the economy.
~the bush admin. is to balme for the decline in morality in our country.
~the bush admin. is to blame for health care cost.
i don't think that gwb's admin is soley responsible for any of these issues.
do i think that the bush admin could better these issues? yes.
do i think they have tried? yes.
do i think that they could do better? yes.
so i'm not sure what to make of this article.
thanks for posting it though.
maureen
Maureen and E,
I think that this article is useful because it links the abortion and the poverty issues. If the article is correct, and if those claiming the president can't stop abortions through legislative or judicial means are also correct, then it might be defensible to argue that the candidate best suited to deal with poverty is, in pragmatic terms, the pro-life candidate.
Interesting thesis.
diane and luke, thanks for the comments. you are likely correct--that many, if not most abortions are as a result of decisions for convenience sake rather than out of a real economic crisis.
my point in posting this article was more to show that if we actually break down statistics in the states listed that abortions have increased, not decreased, under a republican president, congress, and supreme court.
many people i know, mostly christians, are voting based on a "pro-life" stance. i am 100% in support of that, but i wonder where we draw the line with "life." is our desire to protect life primarily concerned with the unborn, the just-born, the been-born-awhile? if the unborn is the highest priority, then we should be concerned with climbing abortion rates. if the just-born is our primary concern, then we should be concerned with healthcare for infants and moms and support for new dads, as well as being really clear in churches that divorce is not an option for christians. if the been-born-awhile are near and dear to us, then we need to look at protecting social security, medicare, etc.
in my opinion, these are all important issues--all so important that i'm not going to base my vote on only one of them, especially when the guy in power hasn't done anything positive that i can tell in any of these three areas.
Post a Comment
<< Home