Remarks by the President in Telephone Call to Right to Life Participants

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004

Answers

-- (top@top.top), January 23, 2004.

The elitist jerk remembers social conservatives only during election time. The wise social conservatives will give him the treatment he deserves. The lemmings will act like lemmings.

-- J. Fernandes (goananda@hotmail.com), January 23, 2004.

So far he is the only likely candidate for president who is not in favor of late term abortion. Maybe he can save a few million children from the murderers. If that is self serving (and I don't think it is), then so be it.

Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 24, 2004.

He's also the only candidate who lied to start a war for his own interests and turned the only budget surplus in the country's history into a 3 trillion dollar deficit.

Kerry was a war hero; Bush's dad pulled some strings to get Dubya out of having to go to Vietnam.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 24, 2004.

I have NO idea who I will vote for. It probably won't be either a Dem (all the candidates are pro-abort) OR a Repubican (I despise Bush and could never iin good conscience vote for that man).

-- AVC (littleflower1976@yahoo.com), January 24, 2004.

Ask us if we care.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2004.

Kerry was a war hero

Kerry is in favor of late term abortion and has voted to keep the killing going. He recently announced he will support only pro- abortion judges to the Supreme Court.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 24, 2004.

I have NO idea who I will vote for. It probably won't be either a Dem (all the candidates are pro-abort) OR a Repubican (I despise Bush and could never iin good conscience vote for that man).

If you have a choice to vote for a pro-abortion candidate or an anti- abortion candidate, you really should vote for an anti-abortion candidate. There is a lot of debate about the Iraq combat in the war on terrorism, and positions can be taken on both sides, but it is clear we are killing innocent children in this country by the millions, and this killing must stop now! As a Catholic your duty is to stop it if you can.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 24, 2004.

Some of the Remarks by the President in Telephone Call to March for Life Participants

You believe, as I do, that every person, however frail or vulnerable, is a blessing. Each of us has a special dignity, a place and purpose in this world. And in the Declaration of Independence, our founders stated this self-evident truth: The right to life does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of life.

During the past three years we've made real progress toward building a culture of life in America. As President, I've signed the Born- Alive Infants Protection Act. I have signed legislation supporting maternity group homes. Working with the Congress, we have refused to spend taxpayers' money on international programs that promote abortion overseas. We're opposed to the destruction of embryos for stem cell research. And last November, it was my honor to sign into law a ban on the brutal procedure of partial birth abortion.

..., I want you to know that our administration is vigorously defending this law against those who would seek to overturn it in the courts. ...

But we all know there is still more to do. Earlier this week, I proposed that we double federal funding for abstinence education programs. We will continue to support crisis pregnancy centers, adoption, parental notification laws, and the vital work of faith- based groups.

I strongly support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which the House Judiciary Committee approved yesterday. (Applause.) And now the entire Congress should act on this bill so I can sign it into law.

We'll also work with Congress to pass without delay a comprehensive and effective ban on human cloning. We can push the limits of medical science while maintaining the highest of ethical standards. Human life is a creation, not a commodity, and should not be used as research material for reckless experiments.

Above all, we must continue with civility and respect to remind our fellow citizens that all life is sacred and worthy of protection. I know as you return to your communities you will redouble your efforts to change hearts and minds, one person at a time. And this is the way we will build a lasting culture of life, a compassionate society in which every child is born into a loving family and protected by law.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 24, 2004.

Look...I'm not one of those liberals who thinks that it is a wonderfull thing when a woman aborts a pregnancy she doesn't want. I think that people need to be responsible enough not to tisk getting pregnant if they can't handle the consequences. But I realize that this is my opinion, and I am in no position to dictate to others what is right and what is wrong, and niether is our government. I think that instead of banning abortions, the government should provide alternatives; incentives not to terminate the pregnancy, such as financial aid for mothers who choose to keep their babies, free adoption counseling, tax breaks, ect.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

I'm not one of those liberals who thinks that it is a wonderfull thing when a woman aborts a pregnancy she doesn't want.

Translated: "I'm a liberal on almost everything, but I feel uneasy when an expectant mother hires a medical hit-man to murder her baby. Still, being a liberal, I don't have the courage to do anything about it."

I think that people need to be responsible enough not to risk getting pregnant if they can't handle the consequences. But I realize that this is my opinion, and I am in no position to dictate to others what is right and what is wrong, and niether is our government.

Translated: I am actually a semi-anarchist. Government has no right to pass a law forbidding the murdering of innocent, defenseless babies. After all, being pro-life is all just an opinion. Of course, government DOES have a right to pass laws forbidding "hate speech," discrimination, arson, and rape. That stuff is not "opinion."

How utterly ridiculous!

The number one priority of the U.S. government is to protect its citizens, and there are none more endangered than the unborn citizens.

-- (Lingo@Translator.com), January 30, 2004.

Talk about putting words in my mouth. I never said that anyone has the right to forbid "hate speech". I'm actualy very conservative on a lot of issues. Gun rights, for instance. I think it's the people's right to be allowed to own guns (although there's nothing wrong with a 3-day waiting period). If you are truly a conservative, you would realize that it is not the responsibility of the state to tell you what to do with the pregnancy. If you want to make the disgusting choice to abort it, then you are a sick individual, but having the government come in and tell you what to do only increases people's dependence on it. The federal government can't be everyone's mommy.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 30, 2004.

I wish that you could realize how foolish your comments are, A-B. It is patently obvious to any intelligent, honest American that an unborn baby is a human being, a person, a citizen. That being the case, the government not only can, but is obligated to, protect that child!

Instead of recognizing this fact, though, you are referring to the baby as "it." You are no courageous pro-lifer, that's for sure! Look at this stuff of yours -----

... it is not the responsibility of the state to tell you what to do with the pregnancy.

What???? We are not talking about a "pregnancy"? No, sir ... we are talking about a "baby." And because he/she is a baby, the state DOES have "the responsiblity ... to tell" people what to do -- namely, to protect and to give birth to that citizen!

If you want to make the disgusting choice to abort it ...

Why "it"? That is a neuter pronoun, not to be used about a baby, but about a sub-human thing, like a sack of potatoes.

... having the government come in and tell you what to do only increases people's dependence on it.

Absolutely not. When the government tells us not to kill our fellow human being (whether already born or not), that has nothing to do with "dependence" on the government. With your illogic, you would have to argue that the government has no business passing laws to command us not to kill people whom we find unfriendly or bad-smelling or of the wrong religion.

You need to get back to basic thinking, because you have really lost contact with reality.

-- (Lingo@Translator.com), January 31, 2004.