Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

According to Polls, Fred Thompson Foundering
Wash Post ^ | 11/13/07 | Chris Cillizza

Posted on 11/13/2007 11:13:48 AM PST by pissant

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540541-544 last
To: Kevmo
***How did you get to that screen?

IEM Home Page ->

2008 Presidential Nomination Markets ->
DConv08 and RConv08 Data ->
IEM Daily Price History - RConv08
I then had to copy/paste to isolate Fred Thompson's figures.
541 posted on 11/15/2007 11:11:56 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Possibly. It might make an amendment easier if there was an established model. However, if an interpretation is established or legal definition passed by Congress that the unborn are persons in the eyes of the law, then no amendment would be necessary. The 5th and 14th amendments would already suffice.

Then, what constituted justifiable homicide of unborn would be left to the States to define, as any other justifiable homicide is. “I want an abortion because I forgot to use a condom or take my Pill” would probably not pass muster for equal protection, however.

The abortion lobby knows this, of course. That’s why you see them freaking out when a Scott Peterson is up for murder: they don’t want the personhood of fetuses established in a court.

542 posted on 11/15/2007 11:43:27 PM PST by LexBaird (Behold, thou hast drinken of the Aide of Kool, and are lost unto Men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

To: supercat

Thanks. I thought it was an Intrade screen. That explains it.


543 posted on 11/16/2007 9:22:50 AM PST by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
Then, what constituted justifiable homicide of unborn would be left to the States to define, as any other justifiable homicide is. “I want an abortion because I forgot to use a condom or take my Pill” would probably not pass muster for equal protection, however.

No, but a state that wanted to do so could make the justifiable-homicide rules large enough to drive a truck through. After all, how many pregnancies don't expose a woman to some level of risk? While abortion certainly has risks of its own, trying to put explicit measurements of risk into legislation or--even worse--into a Constitutional amendment seems to me a recipe for trouble.

Besides, I think that it's best to focus first on getting the matter returned to states, especially since one may have some allies in that task who would not support having the federal government force states to take any particular action. Pushing for the total abortion ban first would give up those allies.

544 posted on 11/17/2007 10:52:27 AM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540541-544 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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