Why isn't Bush ever asked this question about abortion:

[wickerwoman]

What are you doing, Mr. Bush (and by extention your fundie base), to develop medical alternatives to abortion? Instead of sending death threats to doctors and shoving gruesome pictures in people's faces outside Planned Parenthood, why aren't all those fundies at university studying bio-technology?

We have test tube babies and can keep babies born even in the late fifth month of pregnancy alive in incubators. How far away, really, are artificial wombs or cryogenic freezing of fetuses awaiting implantation in surrogate mothers? If we funded research into reproductive technology in a way that indicated that abortion truly is the "great moral crises of our age", I suspect that this technology would not be very far off.

Wouldn't this make everybody happy? I mean, we're never, ever, ever going to 1.) convince fundies that the fetus isn't a life and 2.) eliminate the need of women in certain situations to have abortions. So why not develop technology that would allow women who don't want to carry babies to have a choice and women who want to save "lives" to bear and raise them. This kind of research would be pro-life and pro-choice. And the father would have increased "rights" in the decision about whether or not to bring the fetus to term. If the woman doesn't want the baby, she can sign away the rights and the father can find someone else to carry it.

So why aren't we funding it? It wouldn't be because abortion as a political issue is really about getting votes and punishing women for having sex would it?

[yurbud]

1. scientific american had a piece on some japanese scientist doing this

[daydreamer]

2. The media whores don't ask any real questions.

We have enough children now in orphanage that nobody wants to adopt.

[deadparrot]

3. Why isn't he asked it?

Because the WH only answers questions from reporters who ask safe questions.

[blogbear]

8. amen!

[OrlandoGator]

4. My question: "Why aren't you pushing for a full-out ban?"

If these people are truly so gung-ho against abortion, I want to know why they don't campaign openly about banning it altogether. Put it on the table and see what happens.

They won't, because they don't believe in it enough to risk losing power. They just tease the fundies with the idea once in a while to keep them riled.

[Gnaeus]

5. They like abortion

As long as it is still controversial they won't touch it. They'd have no way to divide the country and energize there base.

[Greylyn58]

6. Exactly!!!

The minute they lose their fundie talking points on abortion and gay rights, they don't have anything else to offer to the religious right.

:eyes:

[nytemare]

7. Abortion, Homosexuality, Bin Laden, Liberals

As long as these things exist, Bush is happy because he has an enemy.

[Ruffhowse]

9. The Fundies ULTIMATE agenda is to stamp out any sexuality outside

the "sanctity" of marriage, and to make birth control illegal. They would never be party to any effort to increase our options to engage in sex safely and without the consequences of pregnancy.

[flyarm]

10. and why does no one ask * about the abortion ..

he paid for when he was young for a girlfriend he got pregnant?? ohhhhh i know...repugs only worry about what others do ...not what they do themselves...what filthy hypocrites these cons are..i can not stand the lot of them...i am sick of them shoving their immoral values on the rest of us and then telling the world how damn moral they are..what filthy pigs they all are!!

fly

[FloridaPat]

11. Paul Harvey suggested that years ago. Adopting fetuses and

putting them in other women's wombs is here today. It would solve the abortion problem years ago. Just go from patient A to patient B. No loss of "life". Everyone is happy. I never heard anyone else mention this. It is too easy. Quite probably the reason the right wing is against abortion is because they want to control women. This adoption would put things back in the hands of women.