Do you understand the relevance of this image (in your signature)?
Posted on 11/08/2007 12:00:05 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
WASHINGTON -- Fred Thompson was well into a prolonged dialogue about abortion with interviewer Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday when he said something stunning for social conservatives: "I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors." He then went further: "You can't have a (federal) law" that "would take young, young girls ... and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail."
Those comments sent e-mails flying across the country reflecting astonishment and rage by pro-life Republicans who had turned to Thompson as their best presidential bet for 2008. No anti-abortion legislation ever has proposed criminal penalties against women having abortions, much less their parents. Jailing women is a spurious issue raised by abortion rights activists. What Thompson said could be expected from NARAL.
Thompson's comments revealed astounding lack of sensitivity about the abortion issue. He surely anticipated that Russert would cite Thompson's record favoring state's rights on abortion. Whether the candidate just blurted out what he said or planned it, it reflects failure to realize how much his chances for the presidential nomination depend on social conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
So? In August and Sept. he was in the 30s. So was Intrade right then or is it right now? What about a month from now? Intrade is volatile by its very nature.
***Of course it’s volatile and no one can predict the future. Fred was in the 30’s and, when the market had a chance to measure him up, they pronounced him the “segway” candidate, the vehicle that didn’t measure up to the hype.
The way I look at it, the market was correct then and correct now. For those who really think Fred’s going to take off, they can actually make money by putting it down for Fred.
Yikes.
This is one issue that should not be nuanced. Fred should just shut trap and say, “look at my voting record, it’s very pro-life”.
This really was a blunder.
But if the question is simply, “Does a woman have the right to end an unwanted pregnancy?” the consensus in this country is yes.
***If the question is simply, “Should we extend the right to life to unborn babies?”, the consensus is yes.
You know, you are something.
Of course, the Constitution can be amended, and then it will be different than it is now. You just spent a whole lot of time and effort explaining the obvious.
But we’re talking about the Consittution as it exists NOW.
Your Constitutional amendment is for now, and probably for the rst of your life, nothing but a fanciful dream.
Remember it took a long, bloody, wrenching, REAL war, not a metphorical one, to get the 13th into the Constitution.
I’m done with bait and switch practitioners like you. No more posts for me, at leqst not on this thread.
Ah, the ol' discredited Stephen Douglas wing of the GOP strikes again. I'm more in agreement with this quote:
" A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government CANNOT endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become ALL one thing or ALL the other. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South. Have we no tendency to the latter condition?"
-- Abraham Lincoln, 1858
Maybe we should abolish that bad ol' 13th amendment as affront to "federalist" principles. After all, what gave the federal government the right to tell EVERY state they had to respect human rights and basic dignity for all? If some state chooses to have laws treating human beings as lower than animals and disposable property, let 'em.
I don’t see the big deal...looking at the transcript...he mentioned the hypothetical possibility regarding a law with an age cut off and said he was against it. He didn’t accuse pro-life people of wanting to criminalize young girls at all....
The Constitution as it exists now, and as it has always existed, says that its purpose is to secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OUR POSTERITY.
Think long and hard about the meaning of the word "posterity."
The Constitution as it now exists, and has since it was first amended, guarantees in the heart of the Bill of Rights that no innocent PERSON can have their life taken.
The Fourteenth Amendment, added later, reiterates and expands on that protection.
Even Blackmun, the author of Roe, admits that if an unborn child is a person, they are to be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Every honest person will now admit that the unborn child is a person.
Why?
Science has advanced since 1973. Because of what we now know about DNA, there is no longer ANY question: THE UNBORN CHILD IS A PERSON! Once conception occurs, a new, unique individual exists. Unique in the history of mankind.
Nobody’s demanding that scenario that comes straight out of NARAL’s talking points.
If the med school scum who do abortions now are outlawed, they will go to jail if they do it.
14 year olds won’t be getting abortions very often. When they do it will be because some adult dragged them there. Those adults ought to be punished.
Oh, and please don’t take out another NARAL talking point and tell me how many women will die from illegal abortions. NARAL made that up, too.
Ask the former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson- He was there when they made up the numbers.
The poor man spends his life doing penance for his participation.
Yes, and making drugs illegal has stopped them, too. Oh, wait, maybe not.
You can deny that there is at least something to evaluate if you want to. Reality sucks. Denial is one way to handle it. Much easier than dealing with hard problems I suppose.
You can also ignore what Thompson has said and done throughout his career. So you think he’s taking orders from NARAL? You are beyond reason.
You don’t want a solution. You want someone to bow down to your superior wisdom. Go change some minds on abortion if you want to make a difference. Then the politics takes care of itself. Fred Thompson is not the problem. His approach is, in fact, the only practical solution. Presidents don’t get to change the Constitution. Twenty years of Reagan, Bush, and Bush hasn’t changed the Constitution re abortion, and eight years of anyone you want to elect won’t change it either. The only solution is to appoint judges who believe in federalism, realize that Roe V Wade is bad law, and overturn it so the states can decide. If you can’t do that, you certainly can’t amend the Constitution.
But deny the logic and the facts if you want.
Even Blackmun, the author of Roe, admits that if an unborn child is a person, they are to be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
And IF wishes were horses, all men would ride.
But wishes aren't horses and, whatever they may be morally or scientifically, fetuses aren't people UNDER THE LAW, and never have been. You may want to make them this, and I can see why you want to do that, but this is an idea that is born of emotion, and is ultimately extraordinarily unwise.
fetuses aren’t people UNDER THE LAW, and never have been.
***Nonsense. Several fetuses have been killed and the perpetrator of the crime has been brought to justice. Connor (Laci Peterson’s unborn baby) comes to mind.
I don’t agree with what Fred said, but a whole lot of pro-lifers feel the same way. They want to toss the butchers in jail, but not the ones who hire them.
It’s true that late stage VIABLE fetuses have been given legal protection in many states. It is also true that a separate crime has been legislated in many jurisdictions making it a crime to harm a fetus in connection with a crime committed against a mother, but again, neither of these examples can be used to counter my statement, because:
1. They are state laws, and that is exactly what we are arguing FOR
2. None of them so far as I know extend protection to the beginning of life in the womb and thues would require some modifyiner to the word fetus, like “viable fetus” or “over 23 week-old fetus”.
What I said was in the context of the 14th Amendment and the use of the word “person” in the United States Constitution - AS IT NOW EXISTS.
So, when you say fetuses aren’t people UNDER THE LAW, it’s actually a very qualified statement, where the qualifications include the measureable term of the fetus, state law vs. fed law, and other nuances.
OK, got it.
Looks like that there nuanced position ain’t selling very well in Pro-Life Land.
Maybe it needs a better marketing campaign or good, witty commercials with just the right upbeat music. /s
Not one of you has an answer to this question:
Where is our intransigence getting us? How long do you want to hold out for “the best solution” while denying good solutions.
You are allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
But right now, in the current situation, we’re saving zero babies. Nada. Zilch. And you seem proud of that, in all your purity, with all your platitudes. I am really amazed. Here comes a possible solution, something to at least get us saving SOME lives, and that’s not good enough for you and some others.
Wow. Until this thread I had no idea some supposedly pro-life people would rather sit on their hands and do nothing than work towards a step-by-step solution that promises to get us out of the current treadmill of abortion-on-demand. Wow and double-wow.
Outstanding post.
Freegards
Look, this is the whole argument. There are many people of good heart and sincere conviction who, with the science and technology of today, see that with the blessing of new life, something unique and precisely definable as a new human being has come into existence. Very understandably they conclude that it is a sin to harm that new human life. But, they see people doing it all the time, seemingly with approval of the law, and it is upsetting.
But, that IS the law. What is needed is to change the law, but we aren’t a dictatorship where all that is needed is to somehow place into power a dictator who can with a stroke of the pen, change the law. To change the law is a LONG time project requiring patience and somtimes compromise, moving the line, and changing minds.
That CAN’T be accomplished by fantastic retionalization, and claiming the law says something that it does not, or equivocating of the meaning of words, or any of the other dishonest and extreme debate tactics on display right here on this thread.
Most of all, it can’t mean trashing and undermining the very people that can help most and who have already helped most. The only result of that will be setback after setback. I used the term “purer than thou” to describe some peopel who would seemingly rather lose now than win later. They didn’t like it.
I just don’t understand it and I think we ought to call it as we see it. I’ve done so on this thread to the best of my ability, and I am now calling an end to my posts on this thread.
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.