Posted on 11/25/2007 10:26:20 AM PST by pissant
Contact: Karen Hanretty, 571-730-1010; www.Fred08.com
MC LEAN, Va., Nov. 25 /Christian Newswire/ --
In February 1995, Huckabee supported revising the GOP abortion plank to let states decide their own abortion laws.
"The issue divides strongly committed pro-life and pro-choice Republicans but is not a central issue to most other Republicans. A possible platform revision long under discussion would say the Republican Party, 'unlike the Democratic Party, does not stand for abortion on demand and is basically a pro-life party.' In the spirit of federalism, the proposed GOP revision also would replace the abortion amendment with a statement saying the issue should be left up to the individual state legislatures to deal with as each sees fit. 'That's exactly what we have looked for, and if it's left up to the states, more of them are going to put some restrictions on abortion,' Arkansas Lt. Gov. Mike Huckabee said in an interview after appearing on a conference panel yesterday." (Ralph Z. Hallow, "Conservatives Hold Fire On Abortion," Washington Times, 2/12/95)
And in an April 2006 interview with the blog "Right Wing News" Huckabee indicated that abortion decisions should be left to the States.
John Hawkins [Right Wing News]: Switching gears again, do you think we should overturn Roe v. Wade?
Mike Huckabee: It would please me because I think Roe v. Wade is based on a real stretch of Constitutional application -- that somehow there is a greater privacy issue in the abortion concern -- than there is a human life issue -- and that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision. So, I've never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous. (www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/huckabee.php)
Okay. You have to stand in front of the Supreme Court tomorrow. Let's hear the basis for your arguments against Roe.
Good catch. I should have addressed that purposeful fallacy. But, you know, I can only counter so much silliness in any given day.
The fallacy is used by those who wish to cancel the earliest age in the human lifetime. The same sort try to characterize the embryo as a mass of undifferentiated cells, knowing full well that differentiation must occur very early, beginning at the morula age/stage in order for the newly conceived life to implant into the uterine lining and build the first organ for survival, the placenta. It is lying with a purpose, the purpose to dehumanize in order to defend exploitation of humans at their earliest ages.
See #200. In the first place, there is no such thing as a "fertilized egg", since the gametes cease to exist at the beginning of fertilization. The proper term is "zygote". The new human being is not an egg, of any kind. In the second place, what other species than human would be the subject of discussion here? It pains me to have to point out the obvious, but it is impossible that the offspring of human parentage could be anything other than human beings. Your denial of human status to certain human beings is simply irrational.
Third, either all human beings have rights, or they don't. If all human beings have human rights, then either those rights are granted to them by other humans, or, those rights are not extrinsically granted to them by other humans but are intrinsic, meaning that humans possess them simply by virtue of the fact that they are human.
The Declaration of Independence teaches us that rights such as the Right to Life are endowed by our Creator, and that they are inalienable, meaning that they are incapable of being transfered. They cannot justly be abrogated.
Cordially,
Absolutely. Thank you for continuing to point out the truth of these matters.
Why would that be "silly" and "futile?" Do you have reason to believe that the being that exists from conception deserves full recognition as a human being only if it lives long enough to qualify? According to whose standard of "long enough?"
The pre-born child is alive before it can live independently of its mother. It is alive from the moment of conception and is already a "complete" human being in the sense that it possesses its own unique DNA signature. All it needs is time.
I just don't see how you can reasonably argue that the fetus is not a human being, with an unalienable right to life.
Excellent point, dear Alamo-Girl! Life must be honored -- and defended if need be -- at ALL its stages. Especially in cases when the person is vulnerable because defenseless....
The operant word is ‘reasonably’ ... a closed mind is seldom if ever reasonable.
Thanks for the ping, MHGinTN!
Well, to kill it would certainly "divide the whole process." At the very least, abortion is voluntary manslaughter. Not to put too fine a point on it.
Excellent points, Lexinom. Thank you!
Everyone knows it is a baby! Especially with the ultra-sound taking baby pictures.
However, getting Roe v Wade overturned and sending it back to the purview of the states is not a far fetched notion. Its the most viable solution and the best option available to end the federal governments national policy in support of abortion on demand. In fact, its what most pro-lifers support getting done today. This support also comes from America's largest and most influential pro-life organization, the NRTL Committee. You know, those folks who just endorsed Fred Thompson for POTUS.
Just for the record. Like Ronald Reagan and Fred Thompson, SC Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are all supporters of federalism. Which is a clear indicator they would support ending Roe v Wade and returning the issue to the purview of the states. We just need that fifth pro-life justice on the high court to get the job done.
I suggest you join us pro-lifers who strongly support overturning RvW, as the first step, in a two step process, of protecting the unborn. The second step would be to one day see a Human Life Amendment added to the Constitution. A HLA that would finally protect the unborn in life and under law. Its a long shot at this point, but not totally out of the realm of the possible.
There was a very interesting federal case just before the Roe case arose. In that case was, I think, Steinberg and was decided at a federal circuit level stating that the unborn have status as human beings before the law. The feminazi lawyers seeking a favorable case to send to the SCOTUS to achieve abortion on demand dropped that case like a hot potato. Kevin can give the particulars of that case. You might find it instructive reagrding how the Constitution views the alive unborn, according to that federal court. The ruling was completely ignored by the Blackmun court because it didn’t go in the direction Blackmun et al wanted since it recognized the human rights of the alive unborn.
In other words, you can’t state a legitimate basis for overturning Roe.
Roe v Wade is unConstitutional. Period.
In the 2000 case of Stenberg v. Carhart which struck down the Nebraska partial-birth abortion ban, "Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas once more urged that the issue of abortion be returned to the states."
Justice Scalia stated in his dissent that "the Court should return this matter to the people—where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it—and let them decide, state by state, whether this practice should be allowed."
Justice Thomas, writing the main dissent for himself, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justice Scalia, stating: "Abortion is a unique act, in which a woman's exercise of control over her own body ends, depending on one's view, human life or potential human life. Nothing in our Federal Constitution deprives the people of this country of the right to determine whether the consequences of abortion to the fetus and to society outweigh the burden of an unwanted pregnancy on the mother. Although a State may permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a State must do so. "
Huckabee is the Myna Bird of politics.
Scalia and Thomas are wrong. Those quotes are in agreement with Blackmun in Roe, that the unborn are not persons. Really sad.
With due respect to Justice Thomas, there is no such thing as potential human life. There are no potential humans any more than there are potential apes. All humans are actual, just as all apes are actual. "Potential human life" is a contradiction in terms because the potential and the actual cannot exist simultaneously in anything.
Cordially,
I said silly, because one is a full human being, the other a few cells with potential to become a functional human being. Why do many pro-life folks allow abortions in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother? It is because the recognize that the mother is a fully developed human being, and should not be sacrificed for the...fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, fetus, 8 1/2 month premature baby...whatever you prefer to name it. It also recognizes that for the first 4 1/2 months, ‘it’ cannot exist without the mother and cannot be continued without the mother’s body.
I said futile, because if you try to overturn current laws to make it so, you won’t even come close. We haven’t succeeded in overturning Roe vs Wade in 30+ years - do you REALLY believe there is support in America to make ‘it’, at conception, a human equal in law and rights to any walking human? Here’s a hint: GWB is one of the mildest-mannered conservatives one could ever find, and he only won by a few percentage points against one of the worst candidates ever fielded by a major party. In fact, he LOST the popular vote against a dishonest, arrogant, corrupt, dislikable VP of an impeached President!
Folks, we may not have the votes to overturn RvW! Do you think a democrat Senate will not fight another Alito tooth and nail? Do you REALLY think there is even a 0.01% chance of passing a HRA in the next few years?
Let’s get it back to the states. Many would love to put more restrictions on it than are presently allowed. And then try to win the fight over the next 20 years as medical technology makes possible things like raising an ‘it’ from the moment of conception.
...
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.