“Yes, actually. I’ve even read the 10th amendment, and understand why it was put there in the first place.”
Oh, so you PREFER haphazard standards when it comes to killing babies. UNLIKE slavery that is ILLEGAL in ANY state?
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Abortion needs to be ILLEGAL in EVERY state - just like slavery.
I have NO DOUBT that our founders would NOT want abortion legal in ANY state.
One thing should be clear, Fred Thompson has the most cogent and realistic stand on abortion of anyone running.....overturn Roe vs Wade and chip away at the foundations of abortion at the state level. Being for a constitutional amendment banning abortion is all well and good for show but Fred like many of us understands that the liklihood of it ever passing in our lifetime is practically nil.
“Abortion needs to be ILLEGAL in EVERY state - just like slavery.
I have NO DOUBT that our founders would NOT want abortion legal in ANY state.”
Take the word “abortion” out of the equation and look at the issue. It’s a clear states rights issue, as the Constitution provides no right to the feds in the issue of prosecuting crime beyond piracy and treason. Murder isn’t mentioned anywhere.
That said, I agree abortion shouldn’t be legal, but I don’t want the feds taking care of it.
I have no doubt that the Founders ALSO would not have wanted the Constitution to be used to settle partisan political issues - which is why they specifically rejected using the Constitution to legislate on the issue of slavery.
I do NOT consider pushing for an HLA to be a "real" pro-life position. I consider it to be a "made for TV" position which can rally the troops and make politicians look like they're "doing something", while yet not ever actually getting anything done on the issue. Pushing for an HLA has not saved a single baby's life - and if people were TRULY pro-life, they'd stop the windmill tilting and start utilising the proper, rule-of-law mechanism provided for dealing with issues such as this, which is the Constitutionally-encoded federalism that is meant to direct our governmental system.
Federalism will save babies' lives - pushing for a never-to-be-obtained HLA will not. Federalism has the additional advantage of actually respecting the intent of the law of the land while also actually getting something done. The USA is supposed to be a federally-joined conglomeration of 50 separate States (capital S) who unite for common defence and protection. Approaching abortion from an HLA standpoint is not only stupid policy, abortion-wise, but is also completely contrary to the whole ideological framework of the Constitition. If the Founders had wanted us to be a unitary state with provinces instead of States, they'd have simply modeled us off of France and been done with it.
Don't forget - while the unborn are morally valuabel people - they are not MORE morally valuable than the rest of us. I don't support setting the precedent of undermining the guaranteer of ALL our rights (the Constitution) on the premise of protecting the rights of some.