# And so it starts - Bush and abortion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 23, 2001, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332 "2001-01-23T00:17:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/101 "2001-01-24T14:41:28Z")
**beagledave** I doubt that **PLG** is ignoring your remarks. All this side tracking of who believes what about abortion started as a comment from **PLG** about most believing in abortion for rape/incest, she got called to provide proof of the statement (which, of and by itself, not germain to anything else) and it snowballed from there. FTR, I provided a site that showed overwhelming approval among those polled in America for abortions in the cases of rape and incest. is that the exact same thing as saying ‘most posters at the SDMB who characterize themselves as pro-life are also in favor of abortions being available in the case of rape/incest’ ? nope. But, does it matter? nope. The OP was about Bush’s Executive order and what effect it would have. My position is that of course it would have the effect of reducing services to people in those countries. The order, as stated would give each clinic/provider the option of **either** not providing abortion services (which includes, as a matter of fact and eloquently posted by **DoctorJ** , providing the **information** that an abortion is a legal option, and what the relative risks are) _ **or** _ not have **any** USAID funds at all, which of course, would reduce the services available. So their choice is to reduce services or reduce services. Not based on their own perception of the needs of their patients, but based on the moral stance of an elected official from another country. Blackmail? sounds like it to me. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/102 "2001-01-24T15:08:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > > FTR, I provided a site that showed overwhelming approval among those polled in America for abortions in the cases of rape and incest. is that the exact same thing as saying ‘most posters at the SDMB who characterize themselves as pro-life are also in favor of abortions being available in the case of rape/incest’ ? nope. But, does it matter? nope. > > \*\* FTR, comparing the population at large (composed of at least 50% pro choice folks I would guess) with “pro life posters on the SDMB” is not even close. Does it matter? Well as a pro life poster on the SDMB it does matter to me how I’m (and the other pro life posters that I’ve read) characterized, thanks…and I note that plg mentioned it not once but twice… ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/103 "2001-01-24T15:47:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by beagledave \* > \*\*FTR, comparing the population at large (composed of at least 50% pro choice folks I would guess) with “pro life posters on the SDMB” is not even close. > > Does it matter? Well as a pro life poster on the SDMB it does matter to me how I’m (and the other pro life posters that I’ve read) characterized, thanks…and I note that plg mentioned it not once but twice… \*\* “comparing pop at large w/pro-life posters at SDMB not even close” . No kidding. you missed the point, completely. The original statement was “most pro-lifers are in favor of abortions in the case of rape/incest”. She was asked for proof of that, and she offered up GWB and ‘in any thread here, you’ll find at least one or two who agree with that’. and then the race was on. So, her ‘mischaracterization’ of SDMB pro-lifers was : 'one or two will agree with this, and actually, **Scylla** came pretty close to saying exactly that, which makes “one or two” accurate. In any event, her comment came as a throw away comment in response to ‘where’s your proof’ of the original assertion (which was NOT about SDMB Pro life posters). sheesh. If you want to go back and have people do a ‘mea culpa’ for every slight misstep (and since her one comment that you’re focused on was not at all the main thrust of her post, AND is apparently technically accurate, I’d say it was a slight mis-step), then, by all means, do so. First stop would be **Connor** who claimed that I mis-remembered Bush’s stated position in the debates about RU 486, he claimed (erroneously, as it turns out) that Bush promised that he **would** have the FDA re-evaluate their position, when in fact, his statements were much closer to what I remembered (that ‘as president, there wouldn’t be authority over the FDA’ -he DID say he was ‘disappointed’, but in no way indicated that he intended any action at all.) ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/104 "2001-01-24T16:20:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by beagledave \* > > \*\*FTR, comparing the population at large (composed of at least 50% pro choice folks I would guess) with “pro life posters on the SDMB” is not even close. > > > > Does it matter? Well as a pro life poster on the SDMB it does matter to me how I’m (and the other pro life posters that I’ve read) characterized, thanks…and I note that plg mentioned it not once but twice… \*\* > > “comparing pop at large w/pro-life posters at SDMB not even close” . > > No kidding. you missed the point, completely. The original statement was “most pro-lifers are in favor of abortions in the case of rape/incest”. She was asked for proof of that, and she offered up GWB and ‘in any thread here, you’ll find at least one or two who agree with that’. and then the race was on. So, her ‘mischaracterization’ of SDMB pro-lifers was : 'one or two will agree with this, and actually, **Scylla** came pretty close to saying exactly that, which makes “one or two” accurate. > \*\* Well no. Scylla is quite assuredly not pro life. As far as I can tell, although he personally thinks abortion is “wrong” except for rape/incest, he is opposed to any governmental role (at least until “viability”…) As I have been told before by other pro choice folks, that is a pro choice position. So again…PLG did not back up her characterization of pro life sdmb posters. I didn’t miss your point completely… Is this off topic? (shocking, to have tangental conversations in GD 😛 )Yep… Could this point have been answered or retracted quickly by PLG …yep (and yes I did attempt to correct another “factual” issue…I provided a cite for Scylla’s question about the 1973 law) If she chooses to not back up her statement, then fine I can drop it 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/105 "2001-01-24T16:27:31Z")
Scylla, et. al.–thanks for the kind words. I don’t know for sure that the scenario I describe would result from the restriction, but it could, and I’m sure some (maybe most) pro-lifers would prefer that it did. Keep your BS meter on yellow alert as the FDA “re-evaluates” RU-486, which new HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson said would be happening. My prediction is that they’ll point to some complication rate–for instance, one study I read said that 2% of women in the study were hospitalized after a medical abortion–and claim that the drug is too dangerous to allow on the market. The intellectually honest thing to do would be to compare the complication rate of RU-486 with that of surgical abortion, and to the complication rate of normal term pregnancy. I’d be willing to guess that RU-486 results in somewhat fewer complications than the former and a damn sight fewer than the latter. I don’t expect anyone in this administration to do the intellectually honest thing, particularly on this issue. Dr. J ---
**Author:** ![Jaakko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@Jaakko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jaakko)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/106 "2001-01-24T16:47:44Z")
I’ll try another angle here. Some here say there’s nothing wrong with Bush blocking all federal funding to organisations connected with abortion. If that is so, then could Bush also enact measures that block all federal funding to organisations connected with homosexuals (eg. employing them or helping homosexual communities to gain wider acceptance in their area)? What’s the difference between these two scenarios? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/107 "2001-01-24T17:00:54Z")
Right after I posted the above, I switched to anothe thread and saw **Scylla** s’ comment “I am not pro-life”. I’ll post what I said there (paraphrased) - I believe that much of the confusion that comes about, happens when some one who thinks of them as pro choice will refer to others as “pro life” anyone who wants restrictions to abortions. The link I provided with stats etc. shows about 17% of Americans believe that abortions should be outlawed completely. I generally would call those folks “pro life”. However, it is entirely possible that many of the plurality of folks who want to allow abortions only in the case of rape/incest/life treat to mom, **also** consider themselves as pro life. If your point is that we should respectfully await a position paper from each individual with all possible scenarios/rationals before attaching lables to them, fine. It’ll make for some lengthy waits in debates, tho. So it is back to **plg** made a statement relative to ‘pro lifers’ in general, was asked to prove it, gave “GWB” and ‘there’s at least one or two prolifers here who believe that’, and you’re **still** waiting for her to retract that. Fine. I still say that it was not germane to her arguement. Her **main** point, seemed to have been that **most** people are in favor of abortions in the case of rape/incest. This seems to be true. Only 17% of folks wouldn’t be in favor of abortions in that case. So, either at best, only 17% of Americans are pro=life, or any in excess of that number hold the internally inconsistant belief that **plg** mentioned. And, if none of those are regular posters at SDMB, fine and dandy, I’ll give you a mea culpa on her behalf (if she’ll let me). Of course, I’ll still point out that several posters here kept on stating “I don’t want my tax dollars paying for abortions in other countries” despite specific evidence that it wasn’t true at all. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/108 "2001-01-24T18:15:45Z")
> [@](#): > > [ > > Her **main** point, seemed to have been that **most** people are in favor of abortions in the case of rape/incest. This seems to be true. Only 17% of folks wouldn’t be in favor of abortions in that case. So, either at best, only 17% of Americans are pro=life, or any in excess of that number hold the internally inconsistant belief that **plg** mentioned. And, if none of those are regular posters at SDMB, fine and dandy, I’ll give you a mea culpa on her behalf (if she’ll let me). > > Of course, I’ll still point out that several posters here kept on stating “I don’t want my tax dollars paying for abortions in other countries” despite specific evidence that it wasn’t true at all. 😃 \*\* If PLG was trying to say that most folks (at least Americans, I guess) favor abortion in the “hard cases” (rape/incest) I would completely agree with that (and your cite of the abc poll further supports that) If she was trying to say that there are lots of pro life SDMB posters taking that position…I really haven’t seen that, at least in the abortion threads I’ve read lately. And by all means point out the scalliwags who don’t understand the 1973 law…in spite of what you, pldennison (and even moi) have stated. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/109 "2001-01-24T18:22:04Z")
Ok, here is the quote I used from GWB about the issue. > [@](#): > > Bush opposes abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of > the pregnant woman, Then I said “A few people in GD would probably agree with it.” How many is a few? From [Freedom of Choice-Abortion](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=53199) > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by JerseyDiamond_ > I look into my 3 y/o daughters beautiful eyes and fall in love with her more and more everyday. To hear her giggle and discover new things fills my heart with joy. I am a young single mother, and the thought of some doctor tearing her tiny legs and arms off because ‘I’m not this or I’m not that so I’ll have an abortion’ makes me sick. \*\* Real Medical reasons are a different story. \*\*I guess people are going to choose what they want, but it doesn’t make it right… Bolding mine. Hmmm, could “real medical reasons” mean when the mother is endangered? From the same thread > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Joe Cool_ > If I had a pregnant wife, and her life was in danger from the pregnancy, I would not hesitate to request the abortion. Actually, that’s not true. I’d hesitate, but I’d do it. In other words, I’m not “FOR” abortion for medical reasons, but I feel it’s justified in some circumstances. > Later in the thread: > I acknowledge the need for abortions when the mother’s life is in danger. In [Anti-Abortion Questiong](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=23964) > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Morgan_ > I happen to believe abortion IS murder > \ > What facts and circumstances would justify murder?Rape? Health of the Mother? Health of the unborn child? Inconvenince of pregnancy? It becomes less of a black and white question when you consider that there are always extenuating circumstances. In [Pro-Life-Is It About Compassion or Punishment?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=38445) > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by PatrickM_ > I don’t think the status of being a pregnant woman confers on the pregnant woman the right to unilerally terminate the pregnancy. Abortion in the case of rape or incest though, in my mind is > akin to self defense, and so should be allowable. And the most **interesting** quote of all! From the same thread. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Beagledave_ > There are a few political realities that intersect with this issue (rape, life of mother etc…). “I” would not have much of a problem making those kinds of exceptions… What did you mean there? Were you saying you were opposed to abortion except in cases of “rape or life of mother etc…”? Well, I was still researching in more threads, but my other windows are saying “Connection Timed Out” so this will have to be enough for now. Is five enough? And thank you **wring** for your help. > [@](#): > > Her main point, seemed to have been that most people are in favor of abortions in the case of rape/incest. This seems to be true. Only 17% of folks wouldn’t be in favor of abortions in that case. So, either at best, only 17% of Americans are pro=life, or any in excess of that number hold the internally inconsistant belief that plg mentioned. And, if none of those are regular posters at SDMB, fine and dandy, I’ll give you a mea culpa on her behalf (if she’ll let me). We can hold off the _mea culpa_ for now, I think. I proved my point. _This thread is being submitted w/o preview. I hope it works…_ ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/110 "2001-01-24T18:56:22Z")
Scylla > [@](#): > > I didn’t say I couldn’t grasp the distinction. I said it was without meaning. The fact that you did not **say** that you couldn’t grasp the distinction does not mean that couldn’t. The fact that you said that it was without meaning suggests to me that you do not understand it. PunditLisa > [@](#): > > You can call abortion a “woman’s right to choose” but a LOT of people in this world see abortion as legalized infanticide. W is one of them. Since he believes that aborting a fetus is no different than taking a knife to your newborn, surely you can understand why he wants to end this practice. You don’t have to agree with him to then understand why he thinks it is an outrage to spend tax dollars supporting this practice throughout the world. Fiirst of all, **TAX DOLLARS ARE NOT BEING USED TO SUPPORT THIS PRACTICE**. Secondly, I certainly understand why he holds his position, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with him. Just because some people believe that their position is the only moral choice, that does not make it immune to debate and discussion. A lot of people in this thread are implying that they have a **right** to not have their tax dollars pay for stuff they don’t support. This is incredibly conceited. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/111 "2001-01-24T19:08:27Z")
The Ryan: Perhaps your right. I am open to the possibility. What is the distinction? Why is it meaningful? ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/112 "2001-01-24T19:31:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pepperlandgirl \* > \*\*Ok, here is the quote I used from GWB about the issue. > > > [@](#): > > > > Bush opposes abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of > > the pregnant woman, > > Then I said “A few people in GD would probably agree with it.” How many is a few? > \*\* In order 1. You did NOT refer to “just people in GD”, you referred to pro life posters. I would agree that you can probably find people in GD (and the rest of the population) that would agree with the GWB position…you said that you could find at least one or 2 pro life posters saying that in ANY abortion thread. You first said "1. The majority of pro-lifers believe abortion is ok in cases of “rape and incest” " Later you said "Pick any abortion debate here in GD, and there will inevitably be more than one pro-lifer who states “The only time abortion should be allowed are in cases on incest and rape.” " 1. Jersey Diamonds post does not match your statement 2. Joe Cool…i don’t have access to his other posts…but is he pro life? If not…then his post doesnt match your statement 3. I’m not sure if Morgan would consider him/herself “pro life” since he/she states that there are “always extenuating circumstances”. Not to be flip, but if I say that capital punishment is murder, but that there are lots of instances where “extenuating circumstances” dictate the death penalty…am I really opposed to the death penalty? 4. PatrickM would be a poster who would match your statement. 5. My statement (somewhat out of context …(the context was about “punishing women” as a rationale for abortion…)also perhaps worded poorly by me in that post… Do I think that women have a “right” to abortion in cases of rape/incest…NO(or as you put it "Do I think it’s OK?..NO). Do I think women have a “right” to abortion in the rare case of endangering the life of the mother…YES. In POLITICAL reality, would I make a compromise for legislation that would lead to banning abortions, but allow the rape/incest exception? (especially if I believed that at least the short term political alternative was no ban at all)…yes I would. I would still suggest that you have not supported your inital assertion that "1. The majority of pro-lifers believe abortion is ok in cases of “rape and incest” " ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/113 "2001-01-24T19:35:02Z")
Pep, Beag: Step back a sec. and the point of this is… ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/114 "2001-01-24T19:54:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*Pep, Beag: > Step back a sec. > and the point of this is… \*\* Dude…you’re right…The OP is being a bit overshadowed… I’ll offer my own mea culpa for dragging it on longer 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/115 "2001-01-24T20:08:45Z")
> [@](#): > > A lot of people in this thread are implying that they have a right to not have their tax dollars pay for stuff they don’t support. This is incredibly conceited. I’m just picturing the founding fathers rolling over in their graves… I can only respond by saying that it is the epitome of conceit to have a government require me to hand over a third of my earnings, upon threat of JAIL, with no explanation as to how they plan to spend my money. If my government is financing something I do not support, I have a right, and perhaps DUTY, to complain. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/116 "2001-01-24T20:18:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PunditLisa \* > \*\*If my government is financing something I do not support, I have a right, and perhaps DUTY, to complain. \*\* Aboslutely. Complain away. Legislate **others** ability to speak? no. Force the rest of us that since **you** disagree with it, it must be stopped? no. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/117 "2001-01-24T20:30:08Z")
[Pro-lifers who believe in abortions in cases of rape/incest](http://www.prolifeinfo.org/upl6.html) So, according to this pro life site, they specifically include as “prolife”, those who believe in abortions in cases of rape/incest only. and, it does seem to be the case that those who accept abortions in the cases of rape/incest comprise the largest percentage of those described on this site as “pro life”. whew. It’s a long way to Tippenary. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/118 "2001-01-24T21:03:45Z")
Wring: Soory buddy, but what is that proving again? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/119 "2001-01-24T21:12:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*Wring: > > Soory buddy, but what is that proving again? \*\* yea, I know. (by the way, it’s buddette) I **said** I couldn’t help myself… ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/120 "2001-01-24T21:15:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > Complain away. Legislate **others** ability to speak? no. Force the rest of us that since **you** disagree with it, it must be stopped? no. Er, I haven’t followed the whole thread, but **wring** seems to feel the President has done nothing wrong, right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332.md?page=7)