Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: SuziQ

Fred has always thought that the FEDERAL government should not be involved in the abortion decision, but he personally believes that the unborn child is a human being, and has been saying just that.
***He “personally” believes it, and yet he says on abortion: “Government should stay out of it... The ultimate decision must be made by the women...”

He has seen what has happened because of the Supreme Court decision, which took any semblance of voter involvement out of the issue. What we have today is polarization because people believe, quite rightly, that their opinions are not being heard and that their efforts to reduce abortion are being blocked because of the Roe v Wade roadblock.
***I agree with this.

I say that politicians claiming to support the HLA are pandering because they can talk until they are blue in the face, but they won’t get the Amendment passed, so they’re not saving one single baby with all their talking.
***This appears to be the crux of your argument. Today, there are several HLA amendments being introduced for voter approval through initiative processes in several states. And yet this is just “pandering”. NO, it is one of the ways that pro-life activists are seeking an end to this holocaust. The fact that it does not have the support of Fred but has the support of Hunter is very telling. Hunter is the better pro-life conservative.
We’ve already seen that having both the White House and Congress in Republican hands didn’t do anything to move that along.
***Fascinating. These observations are exactly the same that the rudytoots used in support of their candidate.

Why not look at other ways to solve the problem?
***I do. Pro-life activists do. But in your support of a candidate who has a reasonably good pro-life record you have twisted yourself into a pretzel because he doesn’t support some of these activities, and he has some notable pro-choice quotes as well as a previous pro-choice client.

What Fred has proposed is something that could be done within the next few years, as members of the Supreme court retire, or die, and need to be replaced.
***You do not address the contention that Fred simply wants this issue to go away.
He has already said that he would appoint strict constructionists to the Court who do not believe that is in the Court’s purview to legislate from the bench. This attitude would go beyond unlimited abortion to homosexual ‘marriage’ and other societal changes that liberals love to force on the populace through Court mandates, because they know that those things would likely never pass if the voters got the chance to weigh in on them.
***I would support this activity as well. I support pro-life activity wherever I see it.
If Roe v Wade is overturned, the major stumbling block to states in their efforts to severely restrict abortion will have been removed. This would result in thousands of babies being saved each year because women would no longer have that ‘back up birth control’, and would likely change their behavior because of it.
***Of course we should try to see Roe v Wade overturned. We should also seek alternatives that do not require the overturning of Roe V Wade such as the personhood-at-conception initiative that Hunter supports, the kind of thing that you call pandering.

It would also mean that every voter would have the chance to made a difference in his or her own state regarding abortion, and not feel like the issue is completely out of their hands. Yes, there will be some states that allow the practice, but even then, you will see that voters will be loathe to allow it for more than the hard cases like REPORTED rape or incest, or in the case of a direct threat to the LIFE of the mother.
***For those who see abortion as murder, federalizing this problem is not a very good solution. We don’t see the feds allowing states to have laws that say it’s okay to murder non-viable children, so why is federalizing the approach towards non-viable preborn humans considered superior? The age of viability used to be 6 years old in Common Law England, and it had shrunk to less than 1 year by the time the Supreme Court deliberated over this issue, relying considerably on the age of viability as a physical threshold. Of course it makes no sense to anyone that a 1 year old baby is truly “viable”, but they recognized that society has resources that it brings to bear upon this question. Well, the same is true now for premature babies and others which have society extending the resource of medical attention and even In Utero surgeries. The age of viability has shrunk to basically -3 months, but women still have the right to kill that baby. Fred’s approach is to find a way to get it out of his hair. Hunter’s approach is to find a way to save the most lives.

119 posted on 12/11/2007 11:26:49 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 96 | View Replies ]

To: Kevmo
Today, there are several HLA amendments being introduced for voter approval through initiative processes in several states. And yet this is just “pandering”.

Even if they are passed, every single one of those HLA amendments in the States will be shot down by the Supremes, using Roe v Wade as precedent. That's why it is SO vital that this decision by overturned by the Supremes. The ONLY way that's going to be done is to get a strict constructionist majority on the Court. The only way that's going to happen is to elect someone who has pledged to do just that.

122 posted on 12/11/2007 12:56:19 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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