From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:20:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: ILS

In article <1992Aug12.214808.18006@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu ( )
writes:
> 
> 
> Bush's statement reflects the reality of legalized abortion on demand
> in this country.  Women can obtain abortions for any reason, during
> any part of their pregnancy, all the way up to the point of birth,
> and there's nothing that Bush can do to prevent his children or
> grandchildren from getting a legal abortion.
> 
> His only real choice today is to allow his children and grandchildren 
> to decide for themselves.  I can't imagine any loving parent would reject 
> their children because they made a decision which the parent did not approve
> of.  If Bush said that he would not support his children in their
> decision, then the press would likely jump all over him for not
> promoting "family values".  
> 

What bull left this pile?

Bush and Quayle have in *policy* have sided with those that says that
Abortion is a moral evil, that Roe v. Way allows a moral evil underlaw,
that is is unjust and must be stopped.  This is the position of the
Republican Platform and this will be the policy of a Bush/Quayle
administration for the next 4 years.  

Bush's does not have only one chice on this matter,  true under present law
his grnad-daughter has a right to an abortion,  but Bush does not have to
except the actions of a child even if they are legal.  If Bush really
believes that abortion is murder he could respond by treating his
grand-daughter,  trying any means possible to prevent her from murder. 

Cleary there is no moral reason to conclude that he should support that
which he considers a willful act of murder.  

Let me put it in a way that even a Bush supporter could understand; 
Anti-Abortion activists see the present situation with abortion to be like
the situation with slavery in the Old South or Germany under Hitler,  a 
morally evil activity happens not to be legal.  No person living in these
countries was morally obligied to except the decision of family memebers to
kill Jews of sell slaves.  One of the corner stones of any ethics is that
if something is wrong it is wrong for everyone, family or not family.  We
have a choice whether to except and support those who plan to break the
moral code.  Any moral code that say's,  except and support family members
no matter what they do is not a moral code at all. 

Bush could have responded,  like the only intelligent person asked this
question,  that he will not respond to that.  He did not, even though he
must have known that he would be asked it sooner or later. Why?  because
Mr. "I will do *anything* to get re-elected"  wants to make it seem that he
is not so anti-abortion.  While his policy is strongly anti-abortion Mr.
Cynic wants to confuse the public into thinking that maybe his stand is not
that different then theirs. 

This dissinformation on Bush's part is evil,  it is an effort to confuse
his stand on policy in the eyes of the American people and goes flat in the
face of the principle that govern republican government. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1970 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4595 alt.rush-limbaugh:3703 alt.politics.elections:10796 alt.politics.clinton:2154 talk.politics.misc:40381