Laura Bush supports gay marriage and abortion

[Matt Collins]

In case you haven't seen this yet:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7720546/Laura-Bush-admits-supporting-gay-marriage-and-abortion-rights.html

[furface]

Laura Bush, like her husband, is an intellectual lightweight. She apparently doesn't see State rights as central to both of these issues.

[Depressed Liberator]

I don't see anything wrong with supporting them.

[Fozz]

So she waited this long to reveal her liberal social views?

[jmdrake]

The problem isn't simply her positions. It's that she passed herself off as a social conservative when she's not. That said the media apparently went along with the deception. She told Katie Couric she was against overturning Roe v. Wade back in 2000 and this is just now coming out?

[Meatwasp]

Barabra Bush was a great supporter of abortion also. I was reading her book and when I read that I threw the book in the trash.

[pcosmar]

Bush Lied.

is this a big surprise?
:(

[Brian4Liberty]

Neo-conservatives are usually socially liberal.

[catdd]

Gay marriage is the hot new fad and all the cool rockin cats and kitties want to hop on the bandwagon.

[Cinderella]

if it feels good, do it

[TonySutton]

As a country we expend far too much energy debating social issues while our economy crumbles around us.

[Daamien]

These issues should be handled on a state level, I'm sure we can all agree with that.

Personally I support gay marriage by contending that all marriages should be handled by religious institutions and not by the State. If a state wants to offer privileges (such as tax benefits) to couples, it must do so for everyone through civil unions between any two consenting adults.

For abortion I don't believe that a fetus has rights before it is viable (usually considered third-trimester) and therefore the government should not be involved in a personal health decision. Doctors and patients should determine a fetus' viability. It's neither my business nor the State's.

Therefore, I don't have a problem with Laura's positions, I just don't want them expressed through Federal law.

[TinCanToNA]

Laura Bush, always a tool it seems...

I guess somewhere in her light reading on "women's rights" she found out that in order to be considered a feminist you are required to support the murder of humans in their earliest stages of their life cycle.

These issues should be handled on a state level, I'm sure we can all agree with that.

Personally I offer support of gay marriage by contending that all marriages should be handled by religious institutions and not by the State. If a state wants to offer privileges (such as tax benefits) to couples, it must do so for everyone through civil unions between any two consenting adults.

For abortion I don't believe that a fetus has rights before it is viable (usually considered third-trimester) and therefore the government should not be involved in a personal health decision. Doctors and patients should determine a fetus' viability. It's neither my business nor the State's.

Therefore, I don't have a problem with Laura's positions, I just don't want them expressed through Federal law.

Haha, viability. Interesting metric. So "survival on your own," or, "able to live outside the womb," is what grants you rights? What an absurd religious concept. You're a unique human being the moment you have your DNA from a genetic perspective. Either you should have the right to develop naturally free from unwarranted execution or you should never have that right, always subject to execution at the will of others.

I'm frankly still surprised by how many on this forum are pro-choice, and where all the various distinctions lie. No logical train coming from the "Natural rights" station can support abortion, and neither can a down-the-line Ron Paulian. Maybe it's just the self-absorbed, objectivist claptrap that like the idea of some humans having no rights.

C'est la vie. Ron Paul is vehemently anti-abortion, and takes the states' rights approach (just like the traditional crime of murder is handled by the states usually). Even Peter Schiff, a "pro-choice" candidate is in favor of states handling the issue of abortion, which is a de facto anti-abortion stance.


As for gay marriage--free association should reign. Government shouldn't really be involved except in a contract-enforcement role, nothing more. It certainly shouldn't be a (small d) democratic decision, either. We have (or had) a republic for a reason.

[Daamien]

Yes, I believe in individual rights. If you can't survive outside the body of another individual, then you have no rights, as you clearly are not an individual as a separate entity. At that point, all rights are vested in the pregnant female, permitting them to abort the fetus prior to viability. It's not really an "interesting metric", it's a purely logical one that accounts for both individual rights and patient health (both mother and fetus). It's hardly religious. Picking a fight with me over this isn't going to change my mind, and we both agree that it should be handled on a state-by-state basis, so back off with the self-righteousness.

On a positive note, I'm glad we agree regarding marriage (including gay marriage) as being outside the legitimate scope of government to control.

[JohnEngland]

Neo-conservatives are usually socially liberal.

This.

If one supports blowing up innocent people in far away countries who cannot be seen or heard, why should one care about ripping apart unborn people who cannot be seen or heard?

[QueenB4Liberty]

Laura Bush, always a tool it seems...

I guess somewhere in her light reading on "women's rights" she found out that in order to be considered a feminist you are required to support the murder of humans in their earliest stages of their life cycle.


Haha, viability. Interesting metric. So "survival on your own," or, "able to live outside the womb," is what grants you rights? What an absurd religious concept. You're a unique human being the moment you have your DNA from a genetic perspective. Either you should have the right to develop naturally free from unwarranted execution or you should never have that right, always subject to execution at the will of others.

I'm frankly still surprised by how many on this forum are pro-choice, and where all the various distinctions lie. No logical train coming from the "Natural rights" station can support abortion, and neither can a down-the-line Ron Paulian. Maybe it's just the self-absorbed, objectivist claptrap that like the idea of some humans having no rights.

C'est la vie. Ron Paul is vehemently anti-abortion, and takes the states' rights approach (just like the traditional crime of murder is handled by the states usually). Even Peter Schiff, a "pro-choice" candidate is in favor of states handling the issue of abortion, which is a de facto anti-abortion stance.


As for gay marriage--free association should reign. Government shouldn't really be involved except in a contract-enforcement role, nothing more. It certainly shouldn't be a (small d) democratic decision, either. We have (or had) a republic for a reason.

You either believe people control their own bodies, or you don't. If abortion is illegal, you're essentially saying women don't control their own bodies. If someone wants to get an abortion, and someone is willing to do the procedure without being forced to, there really is no issue.

I don't understand what is so difficult about the issue of viability, seems simple enough. You can't kill your two year old because if you no longer want to take care of him, someone else can. You can't do that with a 12 week old fetus, pass it off for someone else to take over gestation. If you can relinquish parental rights of your two year old, why are you saying women can't do the same of a fetus? If it could survive on its own, it would.

It just bothers me when people say that being pro-choice is being pro-murder or un-Libertarian or you shouldn't like Ron Paul if you are pro-choice. Murray Rothbard was pro-choice. You can't get any more Libertarian than Murray Rothbard.

[Light]

Regardless of your own beliefs on abortion and gay marriage, show this video to every neocon you know in order to show how phony their idols are.

[JohnEngland]

I don't understand what is so difficult about the issue of viability, seems simple enough.

It's a moral issue. Regardless of whether the parent's child is 1 week, 50 weeks or 1000 weeks old, it's still a human being.

Is "viability" the judge of whether we, as human beings, are deserving of life? What about one day before "viability"? Are we to be discarded?

Well anyway, whatever. It's past midnight here in Britain and I'm too tired to write a looong post. The point is, Rand Paul is awesome. That is all.

[BlackTerrel]

Regardless of your own beliefs on abortion and gay marriage, show this video to every neocon you know in order to show how phony their idols are.

Is Laura Bush anyone's idol?

I dislike George Bush and I oppose gay marriage but I could care less about this. Laura Bush has never held public office and she has a right to her opinion like everyone else.

[M House]

I actually looked thru some abortion history and I'd have to say this has been an issue for an extremely long fucking time. It's hard for me to be incredibly attached to the offspring of woman who wants to kill it. Just being realistic. And yes the Bush's are full of shit.

[QueenB4Liberty]

It's a moral issue. Regardless of whether the parent's child is 1 week, 50 weeks or 1000 weeks old, it's still a human being.

Is "viability" the judge of whether we, as human beings, are deserving of life? What about one day before "viability"? Are we to be discarded?

Well anyway, whatever. It's past midnight here in Britain and I'm too tired to write a looong post. The point is, Rand Paul is awesome. That is all.

So you believe women do not own their own bodies, that they should be forced to remain pregnant because that's a moral issue. It doesn't sound Libertarian..but okay.

[TinCanToNA]

Yes, I believe in individual rights. If you can't survive outside the body of another individual, then you have no rights, as you clearly are not an individual as a separate entity. At that point, all rights are vested in the pregnant female, permitting them to abort the fetus prior to viability. It's not really an "interesting metric", it's a purely logical one that accounts for both individual rights and patient health (both mother and fetus). It's hardly religious. Picking a fight with me over this isn't going to change my mind, and we both agree that it should be handled on a state-by-state basis, so back off with the self-righteousness.It is purely religious. There is no scientific basis for coming up with "viability" as the metric for application individual rights. A 5 year old cannot survive as an individual, let alone a 1 minute-old baby after a normal gestation period. In fact some 40 year olds can't survive without their parents.

Sorry for the tone.


QueenB4Liberty, absolutely a woman owns her own body. All of it. But an abortion doesn't kill a part of the woman's body. It kills a human in the very earliest parts of that human's life cycle. When were you human? Obviously not centuries ago. Obviously not when your mother was being born. You became a natural human being the moment your DNA was formed from the genetic material combining from your mother and father. You were required by nature to live inside your mother's womb for a period of time, but you were not "just a part of her body," and killing you then would have had the same essential consequence as killing you now--you'd be dead after having previously been alive.

It doesn't matter where you live (by force or choice) or what stage you are in in your natural life cycle. Unprovoked murder is still wrong.

[jmdrake]

Is Laura Bush anyone's idol?

George Bush certainly is.

YouTube - Jesus Camp Bush Worship (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWvIOPiKFrs)



I dislike George Bush and I oppose gay marriage but I could care less about this. Laura Bush has never held public office and she has a right to her opinion like everyone else.

What does holding public office have to do with anything? People who hold, or have held, public office have their right to their opinion too. And voters have a right to form opinions based on those opinions. And voters have a right to form opinions based on opinions of there associates. And who knows, if 2 years she might be running for senator of NY.

[jmdrake]

So you believe women do not own their own bodies, that they should be forced to remain pregnant because that's a moral issue. It doesn't sound Libertarian..but okay.

I take it then that you are against child support. Anyway, who cares is something is "Libertarian" or not? Last I checked this was still "Ron Paul forums".

[Daamien]

It is purely religious. There is no scientific basis for coming up with "viability" as the metric for application individual rights. A 5 year old cannot survive as an individual, let alone a 1 minute-old baby after a normal gestation period. In fact some 40 year olds can't survive without their parents.

Don't pretend like you don't know what the metric means, that's ignorance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viability_%28fetal%29


QueenB4Liberty, absolutely a woman owns her own body. All of it. But an abortion doesn't kill a part of the woman's body. It kills a human in the very earliest parts of that human's life cycle. When were you human? Obviously not centuries ago. Obviously not when your mother was being born. You became a natural human being the moment your DNA was formed from the genetic material combining from your mother and father. You were required by nature to live inside your mother's womb for a period of time, but you were not "just a part of her body," and killing you then would have had the same essential consequence as killing you now--you'd be dead after having previously been alive.

"You" were a collection of cells but not an individual. I assume you also oppose the morning-after pill because an embryo of only a few hours old has rights distinct from its mother. Should pregnant women be banned by government from drinking, smoking, or going on roller coasters because that might violate the rights of the unborn?

We aren't going to convince each other, so this exercise is purely divisive. There are libertarians that believe that government should not be involved with abortion because it violates the rights of the mother and there are libertarians that believe that government has a legitimate cause for being involved in preventing abortion because of the rights of the unborn. This is a wedge issue. I think that government shouldn't police morality and that it's better for people (not government) to focus on education and promoting adoption.

[TinCanToNA]

Don't pretend like you don't know what the metric means, that's ignorance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viability_%28fetal%29



"You" were a collection of cells but not an individual. I assume you also oppose the morning-after pill because an embryo of only a few hours old has rights distinct from its mother. Should pregnant women be banned by government from drinking, smoking, or going on roller coasters because that might violate the rights of the unborn?

We aren't going to convince each other, so this exercise is purely divisive. There are libertarians that believe that government should not be involved with abortion because it violates the rights of the mother and there are libertarians that believe that government has a legitimate cause for being involved in preventing abortion because of the rights of the unborn. This is a wedge issue. I think that government shouldn't police morality and that it's better for people (not government) to focus on education and promoting adoption.I certainly agree with your last paragraph.

I would, however, disagree about my status as an individual and when I "officially" became one. If there were any natural distinction to grant us the status of individuality it would be our DNA inside our bodies. Hence I became an individual when I had my DNA inside whatever vessel was appropriate for my level of development--whether an adult male, an adolescent boy, or a blastocyst.

Being "born" has as much ritual significance as it does natural or scientific significance. Sure, it's a significant step in one's life cycle, but can you call a screaming infant an individual any more than you could the minute prior to birth? Birth, however, is tangible, hence why our "natural rights," historically, have usually 'legally' started after birth.

But even you recognize this, as birth being the origin of our individual rights, to be incorrect by using the standard of viability, so "individuality" to you starts before birth, but far after conception. However, there is no meaningful natural significance to this period of viability. It is almost completely artificial. If some women were not so intent upon killing their unborn children, the term viability would have a purely medical, and specifically an emergency medical context. It is the desire to escape natural outcomes that leads to this artificial--I call it ritual--emphasis on an otherwise unremarkable period of development (in relative context, since the rapid development during the entire gestation period is all 'remarkable' in many regards).

But I digress. From your last paragraph it appears we have similar goals of seeing a world with fewer (read: ideally zero) abortions. I can also agree with a "we the people" approach because that, in turn, means state or local jurisdiction of this issue, rather than an arbitrary SCOTUS decision.

[Daamien]

From your last paragraph it appears we have similar goals of seeing a world with fewer (read: ideally zero) abortions. I can also agree with a "we the people" approach because that, in turn, means state or local jurisdiction of this issue, rather than an arbitrary SCOTUS decision.

Agreed :)

[jmdrake]

These issues should be handled on a state level, I'm sure we can all agree with that.

Personally I support gay marriage by contending that all marriages should be handled by religious institutions and not by the State. If a state wants to offer privileges (such as tax benefits) to couples, it must do so for everyone through civil unions between any two consenting adults.

For abortion I don't believe that a fetus has rights before it is viable (usually considered third-trimester) and therefore the government should not be involved in a personal health decision. Doctors and patients should determine a fetus' viability. It's neither my business nor the State's.

Therefore, I don't have a problem with Laura's positions, I just don't want them expressed through Federal law.

Point of clarification. Say if doctor and patient that wants to do a late term abortion for whatever reason declares a perfectly viable fetus "non-viable"?

Anyway, it's now possible for a 2nd trimester baby to survive outside the womb.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=2888874&page=1

I suspect we'll see first trimester viability in our lifetime.

[osan]

I don't see anything wrong with supporting them.

Me neither.

I have to laugh at so many people who talk out their assholes about "freedom" yet get all up in the undies about gay marriage etc. If we are free, we are free to choose whom we do it with and it is nobody's business but that of the parties in question. If I don't like gay lifestyle, I can choose to be something else. It is not my place to tell anyone what they can and cannot do in such affairs.

People are such hypocrites.

[Daamien]

If a doctor consents to terminating a healthy fetus that the scientific community has determined would have greater than 50% viability from medical studies of fetuses delivered at that point during pregnancy using the latest techniques and medicine, then it is the responsibility of medical professionals to revoke his/her license to practice medicine. Furthermore, court action could also be taken by individuals or groups attempting to prevent the abortion in favor of carrying the fetus to term (with compensation to the mother and/or a prearranged adoption) or forcing a premature surgical birth instead of abortion (also requiring someone to cover medical costs and have an prearranged adoption or designated legal guardian). That seems to be the most logical and least intrusive method of dealing with the issue.

Simply banning abortions won't prevent abortions. We all know that money is a great motivator. If a person is willing to reject a fetus for free they are probably more than willing to keep the fetus if someone else is paying for it. This is why adoptions should be promoted rather than bans on abortion.

[osan]

These issues should be handled on a state level

Why? Why should a state be empowered to make such determinations? Screw the states, as well as the feds. These issues are NONE of their business.



I'm sure we can all agree with that.

You're certainty is misplaced.


Personally I support gay marriage by contending that all marriages should be handled by religious institutions and not by the State. If a state wants to offer privileges (such as tax benefits) to couples, it must do so for everyone through civil unions between any two consenting adults.


Here we are in violent agreement. Get the state's noses out of the private affairs of the citizens to whom the state is subservient. Why is this ever so simple concept so difficult for people to grasp?


For abortion I don't believe that a fetus has rights before it is viable (usually considered third-trimester) and therefore the government should not be involved in a personal health decision. Doctors and patients should determine a fetus' viability. It's neither my business nor the State's.

Agreed. I find abortion a difficult thing, true, but it's NONE OF MY BUSINESS what a woman does in that regard. If, as some contend, it is a "sin", let those women account for their choices at the appropriate time, which comes to us all. Until then, keep your nose out of their twats. Unless she asks you to put it there, it doesn't belong.


Therefore, I don't have a problem with Laura's positions, I just don't want them expressed through Federal law.

Agreed. Besides, since when does the First Lady have to share identical views with Mr. President? Such a requirement is, to use a term, stupidly irrelevant.

I have to say that the hypocrisy of so-called "conservatives" and even some libertarians is disturbing, especially when they go on about the hypocrisy of the so-called "liberals". Either we are free or we are not. There is NOTHING in between. Freedom is an all-or-nothing deal and if we are free you need to keep your cotton picking fingers out of other peoples' business. It is as plain and simple as that. You may hate *****, but you have to live with them because if you think you are entitled to interfere with them, then they are equally entitled to interfere with you. People need to get over themselves and get back to learning how to live their own lives and leave others alone.

[Daamien]

I think states are a lesser evil than the federal government. I would prefer no law regarding this, but at least you could "vote with your feet" if you didn't like the law in your state.

[osan]

As a country we expend far too much energy debating social issues while our economy crumbles around us.

Bingo.