Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Reagan Man; EternalVigilance; Paperdoll

There is an interesting foible to this line of thinking though. Although a federalist approach to abortion is the way things went prior to Roe vs. Wade, the ideas on abortion on demand have changed immensely since then; I wouldn’t be surprised if many states would continue to allow abortion on demand, with the exception of a few like South Dakota, Alabama, South Carolina, Arizona, etc. Considering the whole “right to life” issue at hand here with regards to abortion, I don’t see it all going with just Roe vs. Wade being overturned (though that would be nice).

I agree with Fred’s and Ron Paul’s line of reasoning on the topic, in that Roe vs. Wade was an affront to federalism. But approaching this entire issue of ‘abortion on demand’ from a purely federalist point of view isn’t quite the same as approaching it from a pro-life point of view, which not only would call for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, but for the unborn to be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as the humans they are.


29 posted on 08/28/2007 2:07:22 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007 (Look at all the candidates. Choose who you think is best. Choose wisely in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: Ultra Sonic 007
I wouldn’t be surprised if many states would continue to allow abortion on demand, with the exception of a few like South Dakota, Alabama, South Carolina, Arizona, etc. Considering the whole “right to life” issue at hand here with regards to abortion, I don’t see it all going with just Roe vs. Wade being overturned (though that would be nice).

So if that is the case, how can a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion be ratified?

but for the unborn to be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as the humans they are.

By what means? The Supremes?

That means personhood is what SCOTUS deems it to mean. And that just perpetuates their power.

I'd rather see Roe overturned. I think a lot more states would ban abortion than you'd think. And that would slowly move the public opinion to a point strongly opposing abortion. This will be a gradual process.

30 posted on 08/28/2007 2:18:54 PM PDT by dirtboy (Chertoff needs to move out of DC, not move to Justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

If you read what I posted, I did say passage of a Reagan style Human Rights amendment is slim to none. That is very true. I’d love to see it happen, but I’m not gonna refuse any opportunity to cut overall abotions across America. That would be stupid.

The fact that some states would totally outlaw abortions, while some would limit abortions to the three exceptions and still others would limit abortions to the first first trimeister, is exactly the way federalism works.

After 34 years and almost 50 million abortions, doing something is better than doing nothing. Attacking a good conservative like Fred Thompson for his pro-life stance in calling for a federalist approach to overturning Roe v Wade and ending abortion on demand as a national policy of the federal government, is defeatism.


32 posted on 08/28/2007 2:21:36 PM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson