Posted on 11/18/2007 6:55:13 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The real problem is that his position is anathema to the most important part of the pro-life plank: The assertion of the personhood of the unborn, and their protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Your problem is obfuscation.
The goal of every conservative since the inception of Roe has been to get it overturned in order to send the issue back to the states.
The demand for conservative orthodoxy via 14th Amendment protections and the HLA are mere attempts to paint Federalist Republicans as abortionists. It won't fly, and it's a transparent tactic.
You aren't a Republican, and your desire here is to divide Republicans.
Fred Thompson or Hillary Clinton...who's your choice "EternalVigilance?"
Do you believe that the woman, who is the victim of the rape, be forced to carry the trauma and stigma of that rape?
That’s because the MSM has already decided its a race between Rudy and Romney- which is why you see nothing about the other candidates.
His choice is Keyes.
Ok so 23 years...
Nothing, adhered to or not.
So again I ask, do we keep going with failure?
That’s my phrase, damn it! Each time you use it, you must send me $5.00.
Do they keep losing? It's my impression that we're closer to overturning Roe v. Wade than we've ever been before. Hasn't it been almost taboo in the past for many GOP presidential candidates to openly say they will work to overturn Roe v. Wade? A partial birth abortion prohibition is supported by big majorities, has been signed into law and is now in the courts. Just on an anecdotal level, there seems to be much more opposition to abortion than there used to be.
I could be totally off, and you may have stats that show that we're going the wrong direction. But it's been my impression that we're making progress.
Have you ever heard the saying, "You're an anti-Republican phony?"
The HLA has become nothing more than an excuse for cynical, unprincipled politicians to do nothing.
Every sworn officer of the United States takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. And the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments already protect the lives of innocent persons.
Do you believe, as the Reagan pro-life plank asserts, that babies in the womb are PERSONS? Even Justice Blackmun, in the majority decision in Roe, admitted that if they were, they are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Make the pro-aborts get their own constitutional amendment if they want to eliminate the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments - and repeal the Preamble which describes the very purpose of the document.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Rest assured, the practice of abortion violates EVERY clause of the above paragraph.
Posterity, or, to describe it more clearly for those in Rio Linda, those not yet born, have the same right to the Blessings of Liberty that you do.
I've worked for the Republican Party, and for Republican candidates, for many years, often at great personal cost.
But, if the Republican Party abandons the moral principles it was founded on, you will be correct, I will become "anti-Republican."
But, Lord willing, I will never be a phony.
Good question. The "leaders" at NRTL have had the helm that whole time. Draw your own conclusions from that. I know I have.
If that is true, which is debatable, why do you want to, at the very point of "success," give away the primary moral, legal, scientific and intellectual argument for why abortion is wrong in the first place?
The "partial birth abortion ban" was little more than a phony sop to pro-lifers, one that won't save a single baby.
And, as Scalia and Thomas pointed out in the majority decision upholding that ban, the very language Kennedy used in writing that majority opinion more deeply entrenched the falsehoods inherent in Roe.
The court basically descended into a situation where it was describing how it is "legal" to destroy the life of a child. Disgusting.
That’s it I guess but...if Fred wants to win he better get out there soon and do his thing.
There you go with your damned logic, again. Don't you realize we just want to castigate old Grandpa Fred Thompson, not get a conservative elected president who will pick justices like Thomas and Roberts and Alito?! If ol' Fred from Klantucky won't swear up and down to be for HLA, even though it's a pipe dream, well, we don't want him!
I guess not...that’s probably because I am really just tired of it all. The hate, the backstabbing, the attacks on Romney’s religion ... just about everything. However, like I said earlier if Fred wants to win he better get out there and show me along with others what he’s about.
OK...maybe that’s it.
Indeed I have been one to think we DON’T need the HLA because we already have it.
The definitions seemed to be something the courts have tied up. Roe V Wade going away would go a long way towards that. It is dramatically more realistic than the HLA for the very issue you state, the politicians will do nothing in general.
So what has the better chance?
Well, that’s awfully arrogant if you ask me. I like fred but no one should take that stance. hilllereee has and look how UGLY it makes her.
I guess we just don’t watch enough TV. We never watch the news or tv talk shows. Just Rush.
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.