Monday morning's rhetorical BS - *'s 'Culture of Life'

"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. This presumption is especially critical for those like Terri Schiavo, who live at the mercy of others."

Of course this presumption of life doesn't apply to the mentally retarded or youthful offenders who commit murder.... This is the same president and congress that has limited the access to the federal courts for such last minute appeals and have labeled judges, who do anything to prevent or hinder the gop's death penalty blood-lust, "activist." I'm sure that if the federal judge that hears this case affirms the state court, and thus maintain the long held principles of our constitution and federalism, will be lambasted as being activist rather than adhering to the text of the constitution.... its so digusting....

Isn't withholding medicine from seniors and the chronically ill just as bad as pulling feeding tubes from the brain dead?

I think we should follow this legislation in with a little amendment of our own - a little social judo and we can make it work for us.

"Culture of Life" means one thing to these people. Banning abortion. In all other aspects of life, they are no where to be found. War? Death Penalty? No Child Health care? Torture? All OK with these serpents, sooooo concerned with "Life". The next "life" case for the Talibush will be a "rescue" operation for some unborn fetus. I guarantee.

I've said it many times: They only care about you when you're in the womb. Once you're out, they don't give a crap what happens to you (especialy if you're poor and/or a minority).

...they are very big at births, baptisms, weddings, First Communions, etc. They celebrate these 'life' passages with gusto. Their family business is the "death" business............sound familiar????

If so - his own law he signed in texas needs to be put into juxtaposition with his current words.

many links to stories with the quote, here's from the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/21/politics/21cnd-debate.html?hp&ex=1111467600&en=d959f74eb94c300f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

I have long concluded that this guy doesn't have any screens (which most politicians have) that let him know when he is about to cross way over the line in contradictions (actions from words) - and thus doesn't know (or care) when he needs to chose his words carefully (called spin) to avoid direct contradiction - and in this case hypocrisy.

Boy has he opened himself up to the charge of only being "right to life" when there is no money to be made. Would bet anything that we would find big contributions from private hospital corps in his second gubinatorial run - and to his presidential campaign shortly after or just prior to signing that 1999 bill.

Is that a new one coming down the pike?

How many had questionable evidence used against them and could possibly have been innocent?

Where was the 'err on the side of life' argument then?

How many 'persons of interests' have died in Bush's jails who were most likely innocent of any real crimes other than thought crimes?

....setting aside the issues of tainted or questionable evidence, selective prosecution, and in adequacy of counsel.....