Bush is still a hypocrite. Fortunately, UT-Austin School of Law has standards and refused him admission. Maybe if Bush had a law degree he could devise another ruse to achieve his goal. But it is clear his goal is not improved prenatal care b/c the flash of his pen could bring executive orders that would increase access and/or using 80% approval ratings to fashion legislation to deliver to Congress that had just one limited concept . . . all women who make less than 200% of the federal poverty level will receive subsidized prenatal care at any facility that already receives federal funding.
Corn
I think you intentionally miss the point. The majority of people that die in highway accidents . . . did not do anything other than get in an automobile and attempt to drive to their destination under the posted speed limit while buckled in.
You appear to be arguing absolutes about responsibility. Clearly, NOT using contraception means you are either ignorant of your fertility (which most people are) or stupid (which many people are). But on an absolute level contraception failure results in hundreds of thousands of preganancies. Many of which are carried to term but many will also end in abortions. For your own reasons you choose to believe that one choice is better for EVERYONE.
I also carry insurance. Will it surprise me if a speeder, who isn't buckled up, dies in a car wreck because he lost control and crashes?
We have an expression in the ER. If you've got all of your teeth, no tattoos, and no body piercings . . . you will die from injuries in an accident. And other than single vehicle crashes (which are often either suicide or sheer idiocy) accidents happen due to differences in speed not absolute rate. It's great that you have insurance, never speed, and wear seatbelts. But if you take public transportation and/or carpool you will expose yourself to much less risk. So are you being irresponsible by continuing to drive when you don't have to?
< ....and strict adherence to state edicts that "were in the peoples best interest". >>
The addition of that single comment does not dilute the truth that personal responsibility and common sense are reasonable expectations with regard to
the public's behavior. Common sense is not a concept exclusive to totalitarianism, yet that was your implication. It's dishonest, and quite frankly, makes it
difficult to keep my attention focused on any reasonable argument you might have. I realize that it can be an irresistible tactic in debate, but if you wish to
have your position thoughtfully considered, perhaps you should refrain from debasing your own reasonable arguments with such sophomoric rhetoric.
Hmm quite a reaction. I don't know how much you know about totalitarian states particularly communist China and USSR but the hold on the people comes in part from appealing to their compassion and belief in the common good. Even today China and Cuba quell dissent with the lash (or bullet) but temper it by appeals that acts of state benefit all and brow beat the people about doing for the common man instead of self. Your assumption is well . . . your assumption which often happens when you spend too much time thinking about what you are going to say instead of reading what's in front of you.
The very notion that common sense is exclusive to totalitarian regimes is utterly ridiculous. I am not surprised you would attach such a "sophmoric rhetorical" strategy as strawman to an argument you can't refute with intellect.
My implication is that common sense, personal responsibility, and a host of other laudable traits are often misused for the sake of ideology. Abortion, capitalism, socialism, Manifest Destiny, wars of faith, property, and politics often raise the same issues and justify actions on the same basis.