From: bdsuba@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Grey Rider)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Turner Ranch. Blood Butte, Texas
Distribution: na
Date: 14 Aug 1992 11:17 EST  

In article <1992Aug13.192040.13473@ils.nwu.edu>, hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker) writes...
>In article <1992Aug12.214808.18006@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu ( )
>writes: 
>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.  

Yes. Correct.

>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. 

Bush responded that he would "argue against it", then acknowledged that in 
the end there is no way to stop her, thus he would support her, which is not 
the same as saying he would support the decision.

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

Parents often support their children even when the children engage in 
heinous, illegal activities. I'll bet I could even find examples of parents 
who spend much money and time in defense of children accused of murder. 
Some parents even go as far as to visit their children in prison after the 
children are convicted.  Would you say that these parents are pro-murder? 
Or maybe they are pro-choice on the issue of murder, they wouldn't do it 
themselves but others should be able to decide for themselves?  How absurd 
it is to be hammering Bush on this!


>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. 

An interesting opinion, but I doubt that this is universally held.  BTW,
support does not mean aid and abet, it means love your child. Simple, eh?



>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. 

Methinks your perspective is clouding your premises and conclusions.


>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. 

There is no disinformation.  There is no evil, just simple 
misinterpretation.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1961 alt.politics.marrou:816 talk.politics.misc:40364 alt.politics.elections:10786