Neither is building a castle in the clouds. It is simply not possible. To be specific, and Amendment to ban abortion first needs to be initiated, and that can only be done by Congress or possibly in State Legislatures. Nothing has prevented this from happening for decades, yet it has not. That isn't Fred Thompson's fault. And if he were President, which he is not, he still would have nil influence over this process.
More. Reverting back to the pre-Roe v. Wade situation is not a bad solution. As you should recall it was not our side that was unhappy back then, it was the so-called right-to-choose side that was unhappy. Presumably they would be equally unhappy should Roe-v. Wade be overturned.
If they're unhappy, should you be unhappy too?
Bottom line is that the Constitution does not give the Feds jurisdiction over such matters. A Constitutional Amendment would change that, but if we give the Feds jurisdiction over the killing of unborn life, then why on earth would we leave outright murder to the States? As far as I'm concerend, the States are best equipped to deal with these matters, and that's the way the Founders intended it.
That's good enough for me.
A President can lead by example and by persuasion. There is nothing in Fred Thompson's past, in his voting record, or in his present day statements that would lead anyone to think that he would be anything other than an eleoquent advocate for life.
Bullhockey. Fred Thompson could care less about abortion, and it's glaringly obvious. Always has been.
I'm constantly amazed at how few seem to be able to read these days. The Preamble makes it clear that the document was written for the purpose of assuring that POSTERITY would have an equal chance to enjoy the Blessings of Liberty. And the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments are clear in their protection of the lives of all innocent persons.
Or maybe you can read, and you're just pretending that those words aren't in the Constitution.
Do you believe that an unborn child is a PERSON? Or do you agree with the author of Roe that they are not?
Then why didn't we decide slavery the same way John?
When it comes to basic human rights, the FIRST being the right to life, the Federalist arguments fall apart. Those kinds of issues should be decided by the states.
And if the forefathers didn't forsee that the Constitution would have to be amended at the Federal level, they wouldn't have set up the ability to do it.
The above should read "should NOT be decided by the states."
it’s one thing to say you can’t get a constitutional amendment to ban abortion outright versus you don’t want one
that is what troubles me about Fred
as much as George Bush aggravates me on some issues I imagine he would support such an amendment
If murder aside from abortion were legal in any states, I believe it would be appropriate for Federal action. The Feds have historically done this over many things that are not explicitly guaranteed by the Constituiton when they did not like the way States handled it.
Things like voting regulations such as poll taxes and ballot tests.
Things like public schools administering.
And even things like criminal trials that did not go their way hence Civil Rights violations.
And of course the big daddy that so many love to usurp for any argument here....slavery.