Posted on 11/18/2007 5:27:53 PM PST by Josh Painter
Has anyone asked Fred Thompson if he, as a state representative or Governor, would vote for or sign into law a state-level ban on abortion if Roe v. Wade was overturned? He says that the decision should be left to the states, but as far as I’ve seen and heard, he doesn’t say clearly what decision he believes the states should make.
Waiting for a constitutional ammendment on Abortion is like waiting for the Great Pumpkin
*************
I expect not to encounter someone who has the gall to claim something like this:
The problem is that most of them are like many of the people on this site. They like to call themselves pro-life, but aren’t willing to contend for the right to life if it costs them anything personally. And God forbid that the personhood of the unborn, and what that means, should inform their choice of candidates for public office.
Not only is it arrogant, it's counter-productive. But keep on with your brilliant strategy of alienating the very people you claim to want to bring over to your side. I've reached the point where I have begun to believe that's not really your goal. I have finally come to believe that the only thing that's happening here is the desire to hear your own voice, bellowing out post after self-righteous post.
Why is it not workable? ,, Simple ,, the same clinics that fudge conception dates after a quickie ultrasound ,, either up in weeks to get a higher fee or down in weeks to bypass state enacted bans on late abortions will simply take the practice to the extreme and continue to exist in a world without regulation thanks to their protectors , the democRATS.
***Good point, that is certainly something that I had never heard of before. That sickens me to my inner core. I wonder if there is a definitive blood test or something that can be done on the dead baby to show that it was past the age of viability? Then those folks truly could go up for murder charges and I would have no problem whatsoever with putting them behind bars for many years.
The party is regressing, badly. Not only that, but they’re regressing to a time and a position that was not only unprincipled, it lost elections. Big time.
***I see it also. It is an ugly thing to behold.
I disagree
The point is that we shouldn't be looking for "rights" in the Constitution, but instead asking whether the Feds have the power to do whatever is in question.
In the case of abortion, the fundamental question is not whether the mother has a "right" to an abortion, or whether the baby has a "right" to life, but whether the baby is a person or not. If the baby is a person, even before birth, then all the rights of personhood apply. They apply as much against the states as against the Feds.
We have to keep in mind that "rights" are really protections against government. Many of the Founders objected to including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution on the grounds that there was no point in stating a "right" to something the Feds had no power to touch. They lost that argument. Still, the so-called Bill of Rights was worded in the same way as the body of the Constitution: not to enumerate rights, but to deny powers to the Feds.
Really? The evidence is there if you care to find it. Heck, even if you've just been paying attention.
And I suppose even his 100% pro-life voting record doesn't clue you in, eh?
And I suppose Romney is a pillar of integrity when it comes to the abortion issue? You're duplicity on this is staggering to behold.
You're really stretching all bounds of credibility Spiff. Try as you might, you cannot make FT a pro abortion candidate.
Really? Show me. Also show me a single pro-life speech he ever made on the Senate floor. Or a pro-life bill for which he was the primary sponsor.
And I suppose even his 100% pro-life voting record doesn't clue you in, eh?
He doesn't have a 100% pro-life voting record. His Senate scorecards from the National Right to Life Committee were 87%, 78% and 33%. He was one of the primary architects and supporters of the biggest threat and harm to the pro-life cause in decades. He even opposed the NRLC at the Supreme Court on this issue. He highlighted his own Senate votes for Title X "family planning" taxpayer funding in a candidate questionnaire for a pro-abort group. Such Title X funding is the primary source of taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. He doesn't have a 100% pro-life voting record.
You're really stretching all bounds of credibility Spiff. Try as you might, you cannot make FT a pro abortion candidate.
I've never tried to make Fred Thompson a pro-abortion candidate. I've only pointed out that his record isn't 100% pro-life and that some of what he is saying isn't congruous with the traditional goals of the pro-life movement.
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.