Bush & Conception

By threatening to veto the stem cell bill, Bush as planted himself firmly in the camp of those who believe that a human life with a full range of legal protections begins at conception.
This is actually something that most Americans don't agree with, but it is a debate that we have hesitated to have with the Republicans. We focus on choice, but we don't focus on the debate of when a human life entitled to legal protection begins.

One position is that it begins at conception. Another position is that it begins at birth. Most people probably fall in between those two positions.

The question becomes is this a debate that we should be having with Republicans? In the course of that debate we can point out that Bush's approach means no abortions for rape, incest, and perhaps to save the life of the mother. It means that the government gets to control this very important decision and not the woman and her doctor.

Of course, the downside may be that there is no consensus on this issue in the Democratic party, but the question then becomes does there need to be a consensus?

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

2 Comments

Re
Do you think there is concensus on this issue in the republican party?  (Really asking, not being a smartass).
by phemfrog 2005-05-26 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Re
I don't know. The party platform calls for what they call the Human Life Amendment, which would grant legal protection to embroyos from the moment of conception. This is actually Bush's position. I don't know how many Republicans buy into that concept. But I am not so much worried about their position as I am trying to figure out a way to change the dynamic on this issue.
by mrgavel 2005-05-26 06:13PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads