Posted on 11/04/2007 1:38:41 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
Fred Thompson told Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that he DOES NOT support a Human Life amendment. That position is part of the GOP platform. Here’s what the 2004 GOP platform says:
"We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions." Here’s what Thompson said about it lifted from today’s Meet The Press transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about an issue very important in your party’s primary process, and that’s abortion.
MR. THOMPSON: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: This is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution,” “we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?
MR. THOMPSON: No.
MR. RUSSERT: You would not?
--snip--
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
I agree, Mister RudyBooster. Fred takes down Rooty and then sets his sights on Hillary. A wonderful plan that will work. Don't cry, I'm sure Rooty Toot will try again in 2012. If not, theres always Algore!
“Sad to say, but Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.....sad fact.”
Sad to say,but Dred Scott will never be overturned . . . sad fact.
Sounds more like a despairing prediction than a fact. Factum means “that which happened.” You are predicting the future, which cannot by definition be a fact. Some people said what you said, only about slavery or Jim Crow laws in the 1850s and in the 1950s.
They wuz wronger than wrong.
The pro-life movement would be strongly emboldened by a reversal of Roe. That is what we need to work for, as it is a realistic goal.
Fred is right.
You can darn well be sure that a Democrat would not work for a reversal of Roe. Instead, I believe the Democrats, once they get hold of all branches of government, will work for an increased number of justices on the Supreme Court so their President can appoint several more to give the court a huge leftward tilt.
FDR was going to try that and lost...but he didn't have the alliance with the LameStream Media today's Democrat operatives have. They'll work on it--and if we're not careful, they'll GET IT.
“Fred was not asked this question”
So what? Until he is asked, he’s still got a leg up on Trudy.
“I know, you’d tell your daughter to suffer the consequences.”
I’ve raised my kids to know better than to get into that kind of trouble in the first place, however SHOULD one of my two daughters come to me for help paying for an abortion, it’s just not going to happen. I will help them find information on adoption services, I will help pay for their doctors’ bills as they go through the pregnancy, but no, I could no more pay for the murder of my grandchild than I could vote for a man that would.
“Fred Thompson’s answers will cost him some votes in the South. Maybe he won’t win quite as many delegates in the southern states as we had believed, but he may also pull some votes from people who were planning to support Rudy Giuliani. I’d be thrilled to think that our choice will come down to Mitt versus Fred instead of one of them versus Rudy”
It will be interesting to see if what you predict is true. I think he position on this hot button issue will cost him many votes of pro-lifers that will go to Huckabee or Hunter. Whereas, I don’t see it moving anyone who is a Guiliani supporter into Fred’s circle. Guiliani’s base, I believe, are the real old guard Rockafeller (sp?) repubs, of which Fred isn’t really a type that would appeal to them. I believe his position will cause him to continue to lose ground...which is a real shame. He could be a good president...he just sucks as a candidate.
Romney is no true conservative...I’d prefer someone like Hunter obviously (though I don’t consider Hunter a true fiscal conservative...and I’m not just talking about his trade policy) I just don’t think Mitt is that much different than Fred and both of them are much much better than Rudy. I’m not exactly excited right now by anyone.
There are 2 other factors that lead me towards Mitt: Fred will have a harder time appealing to women and doesn’t have any executive experience.
“That depends on how you define life. How do you demonstrate a fetus is ‘alive’?”
Well, for starters, if it’s dead they usually quickly remove it because dead it will threaten the woman’s life. If it’s alive, it works harmoniously with her body. Sounds pretty simple to me.
Depends on how you define life? Well, mostly we define something as being alive when it’s not dead and dead when it’s not alive and for the most part, most people can tell the difference.
Now, granted, the unborn baby is covered by the woman’s body, so you have to use some other methods, some tools, instruments to extend your five senses, but it’s really not that hard to do for those how know how and have the equipment. Most mothers can even pretty much tell. Indeed, in most cases the mother’s body itself knows when the baby has died and so her body “miscarries”—she’s carrying a baby that is alive; when it dies, the “carry” becomes a mis-carry and labor begins because the woman’s own body knows the difference between the baby being alive and being dead. Not always, but for the most part.
So it’s alive as long as it’s not dead and dead whenever it ceases to be alive. That’s not the issue.
The issue is what it is that’s alive when it’s alive and what it is that’s dead when it is dead. It’s not a live kangaroo nor a dead loon. It’s a human baby, which is to say, it’s a less-developed human, not a less-developed gnu.
Interesting. Thanks for the response - I’ll re-read it later when I’m more awake. Cheers!
He is like Mitt was
*smooch*
“Thanks, he will be. Get use to it.”
You misunderstand. I have no problem with Senator Thompson being the next president or with beating out Guiliani for the GOP nomination; I hope he does.
I just simple believe his “fence stradling” on abortion, under the guise of federalism, is going to cost him the nomination.
Nicely said, thanks.
Knock off the personal attacks.
Thanks.
Of all the misrepresentations in your post, this one is the biggest.
Well, maybe not.
Most normal people understood Fred's role in a single case five months ago. It was well discussed here and elsewhere. Your decision to ignore the facts taints all of your arguments.
Actually, that is more like what John Roberts did with his advocacy in Romer v Evans. Fred`s involvement was minor and inconsequential.
>>>>>He also pushed through McCain-Feingold. It would NOT have passed without his help.
BULL! Fred has denounced the issue ad provison of CFR and the SCOTUS has shot it down. Fred`s main effort was to get rid of soft money that the Clinton's made famous in the 1992 and 1996 campaigns, and to increase limits on hard money donations. He accomplished both of his goals. Because of Fred`s efforts the limit was raised from $1,000 to $2,000, along with maximum contributions tied to inflation. The limit today is $2,300. Thanks Fred!
>>>>>And don't tell me that such an amendment would never be passed.
Such an amendment would never be passed. Fred wants to get the reasonable done. Overturn RvW and end abortion on demand as the national policy of the US government.
Fred believes life begins at conception.
And you are a damn liar!
“Did you even read my post? Fred has 100% pro-life voting record and NARAL and other pro-choice groups hate him. You are ignoring the facts to promote your agenda. Ignoring facts does not make for a good argument....sorry.”
Yes, I’ve read all of that and much more elsewhere. The bottom line is that he opposes a position that is near a dear to the heart of the moral base of the GOP. That is why it is in the party’s platform. He is hurting his chance of being nominated by continuing to straddle the fence in the name of federalism. Dedicated pro-lifers want abortion to end in all fifty states. It may be “pie in the sky” to want a constitutional ammendment, but there is a significant number in the GOP’s base that want this, even if the chances of it occuring are slim to none. For a candidate to take a position that is otherwise is perceived as a slap in the face; even if that is not the candidate’s intention.
So, I take it that you think that the 13th Amendment which banned Slavery on a national level was somehow unconstitutional social engineering as well. The constitution clearly provides a mechanism for making changes. Many of the Amendments in our current constitution dramatically changed the structure of the government when they were passed - such as the 14th Amendment and the Amendment which allowed for the direct election of Senators. So, your argument that an Amendment to the Constitution can somehow be unconstitutional is patently false.
On the one hand, and on the other hand.
Right! LOL
What is nonsense about protecting the life of the unborn?
Why do you say that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.