Fred Thompson's blunder

pittsburghlive.com ^ | November 8, 2007 | Robert Novak

[Ol' Sparky]

If - and it's a very big IF - a law could be passed to outlaw abortion because in the eyes of the law it was murder - there would need to be vigorous enforcement activity. Hundreds of people would have to be arrested and incarcerated (if not thousands).

And, hundreds should be! That is if one believes that abortion is the taking of a human life, which you obviously don't.

Thompson's arguments make perfect sense to people like you and others that favor keeping abortion legal. But, that doesn't make the comments any more abhorrent to pro-lifers, a group he needed to rally for him to win the nomination.

[Ol' Sparky]

In 1917, the Constitution was amended (amazingly) to criminalize a behavior that a huge majority of people did not view as criminal.

That would be 1919...And, what idiotic analogy. There is no comparison between drinking alcohol and taking the life of an innocent human being.

There is also no comparison between the level of support for banning abortion for convenience sake and for banning alcohol. The majority do and have for most of the history of the nation supported banning abortion for convenience sake. Up to 30 states would ban abortion in all but rare circumstances if given the opportunity.

[Ol' Sparky]

This battle cannot be won in the political arena until it is won in peoples homes and hearts.

Wrong. The battle can't be won until Roe is overturned. If it was, more than half the states would ban abortion for convenience sake and most others would much more severely restrict it.

And, yes, the law deters. The more the punishment, the greater the deterrent.

[Pinkbell]

I agree with you. The personhood of the unborn child needs to be recognized, and the child would then be protected under the Preamble, 5th, and 14th Amendments to our Constitution. The object of our government is to secure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all persons. It would make no sense if some states are securing that right under certain circumstances and others are not. The unborn child still wouldn’t be recognized as a person with the right to life nationwide. It would be the equivalent of some states declaring black people persons worthy of life and other states declaring them “big blobs of tissue” able to be killed.

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

You’re right.

Some people seem bewildered by the concept, though.

I think personhood is key to undoing Roe. Others find very legalistic reasons to avoid this approach.