????
What has Bush done to stop stem cell research? No other President had provided federal funds for it. It hasn't been outlawed. Private companies can do whatever.

What specifically has been done on abortion? Any new laws? I suppose you could point to Supreme Court appointees, but nothing has changed at all (yet, if ever).

Equal rights for gays? Are you speaking of same sex marriage? What has he done? If anything, his failed attempt at a marriage amendment only strengthened the position of same sex marriage, and it was his predecessor who passed the defense of marriage act.

There are plenty of things that Bush hasn't done well. I am puzzled as to why those are things you've listed uless you are just reciting the party line.

Yes, perhaps Bush Junior did not sign (m)any laws in that regard (or the even more pertinent and imperial Signing Statements), but he did succeed in prohibiting federal funding of viable stem cell research, and he's campaigned while in office against gay marriage rights and women's reproductive rights. And I think he should, if he can't stomach rights for Americans, stay out of it.

As is often the case around here, Alex said it best:
But no, Bush works actively to deny rights to gay AMERICANS, to deny rights to female AMERICANS and to dampen treatment potential for seriously ill AMERICANS.

In the above cases, granting those rights and treatments would harm fetal AMERICANS (re abortion), zygote AMERICANS (re stem cells), and absolutely no AMERICANS (re gay marriage).

So if a man is President of the Unted States and his moral convictions come down on the side against Americans (but purportedly for his jealous hate-filled God) .... yes, he should stay the fvck out of it, and leave the matters to the deliberations of Congress.

I just watched Mike Huckabee on Meet the Press. This is the third time I've seen him interviewed recently. While I bristle whenever his religion is brought up (only to the degree to which his Fundamentalism will shape his ideas), I find him to be thoughtful and intelligent. I'm sure that I couldn't vote for him because of our basic difference of opinion on gay rights and the women's right to choose, I'd like to see him nominated - I think it would make for a saner and healthier debate for the end run of the presidential race than we've seen in recent years.

Oh, that's funny. I had to turn him off when I simply could not stand how he changed the subject from "does the fact that you would outlaw all abortion mean you would jail doctors and women performing and seeking" to "our terrorist enemies have a culture of death."

Gak. I can't listen to someone that smarmy this early in the morning.



.

It's funny how different people do that to us. I really liked Huckabee when I watched it this morning. I have the same smarmy reaction to Edwards.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying he should stay out of it. If he has a position, he is certainly free to campaign in support of his views. And as president his voice will have immense impact on the debate.

I'm saying he shouldn't impose his views on such matters but rather allow congress to make the ultimate decision.

I guess this will slide into the whole moral conviction thing again. It is a moral conviction of some that we should be taxed to provide health coverage to everyone (regardless of unintended consequences). Why should those moral convictions be any more valid than those of a Huckabee or whomever? For most, it simply comes down to whose moral convictions are more in line with your own. Don't like someone because of those moral convictions? Fine. Don't vote for them. But don't expect anyone to keep them out of how the choose to govern or vote on an issue because that is part of who they are.

But why should abortion be outlawed, stemcell research be curtailed/banned, gay rights denied because someones moral convictions say it is wrong?

No one will be forced to get an abortion if we leave R v W alone. No one would be forced to get an abortion, give up their embryos or partake in stem cell treatment if stem cell reserach is allowed to continue. No one would be forced into a gay marriage and it will not weaken straight marriages.

My moral convictions say allow the choice to have an abortion, to allow stem cell research to continue and to allow gay couples to marry. Those convictions aren't harming anyone, nor are they denying anyone anything.

Those whose moral convictions say to outlaw abortion, ban stem cell research and prohibit gay couples to marry is [taken from iSm because he said it so well] denying rights to gay AMERICANS, to deny rights to female AMERICANS and to dampen treatment potential for seriously ill AMERICANS.

Why should murder be illegal just because your moral convictions say it is wrong? Why is animal cruelty a crime just because a bunch of people have decided it is wrong? Why is selling crack cocaine across the street from an elementary school worse than selling 2,000 feet to the left?

All laws are a moral decision and if moral decisions are put outside the purview of law then there will be none.

With the proviso that fetal and zygote Americans aren't Americans at all .... because, when last I checked, you had to be alive to be an American.

As scaeagles points out, everyone's free to vote for the person whose moral convictions they agree with ... but the way I see it, the only moral convictions appropriate to the President of the United States are to defend the Constitution and protect the American people.

Sometimes it's a trade off. Do you take money from some healthy Americans to provide health care to sick ones? But in my examples, there were only benefits to Americans and no harm to any. So those kind of so-called "Christian" morals, I submit, are inappropriate to anyone who takes the presidential oath of office. That oath holds a man to a new morality, if he didn't have it before. Defend the Constitution and protect Americans. Uber freaking alis.



.