Posted on 06/24/2007 7:54:42 AM PDT by rob21
We are holding Rudy and Mitt to the fire about their past on abortion. Lets not forget Fred Thompson.
Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy. Link
A very strong statement from Fred Thompson when he was running for congress.
But, if you must run away from this conversation, like you did yesterday, go for it. I don't care.
I'm sorry, could you tell me when you got put in charge of my schedule, Chester? It's not my job to respond to your posts when you feel like I should. I didn't run away from anything. If I hadn't responded to you we wouldn't be ahving this conversation right now, would we?
That said, my schedule doesn't include time to argue with rude whiners, so get back to me if you feel like apologizing for your behavior and having a real conversation about how to get a pro-lifer elected President. That's what I'm going for; I'm not sure what you're aiming for.
Hold up there, cowboy. Who put you in charge of my schedule? I'll answer your posts when I darn well feel like it, and you can feel free to answer my posts when you darn well feel like it. If you have a problem with that, don't ever post to me again, 'cause I ain't gonna move any faster to make you happy.
Now, where were we...?
Did I say that Mitt Romney was a pro-life champion?
what you did was make excuses for him. If a guy believes abortion is baby-killing but also believes he has to be a nominal baby-killer to be elected, then the right thing to do is not seek office in that state. It won't keep me from voting for him enthusiatically if he's the nominee, but it is the bottom line that even if he's serious about this pro-life conversion (and I doubt it) he's sold out on that issue to gain political advantage before. Thompson may not have been a memorable pro-life champion, but he's never sold us out, and as for Tennessee being a safe state for pro-lifers, why don't you take a gander at who was in that seat before Fred and what that man's position on abortion was and is?
Yeah, why don't we do that? The Fred Thompson "let the states do what they want" approach will let at least 80 to 90% of the babies continue to be butchered that would under Roe. How pro-life is that? Not very, if you're a baby in one of those states...the states, by the way, where most of the abortions take place now.
Source? Can you verify that is indeed his position? Has he said he would only appoint judges that share that assessment?
Fred Thompson will appoint strict constructionists to the SCOTUS. Those constructionists will either overturn Roe by declaring the fetus covered by the 14th Amendment, or they will declare Roe is invalid and return it to the states. I doubt very much that Thompson or any other pro-life pol would reject a constructionist just because they disagree on this one point. So, unfortuantely, it's all roulette. And the reason I think it's pointless to reject a candidate on this basis is because we will probably get one shot if any to squash the abortion holocaust in the next couple of decades with court or legislative action. I doubt any President will get that opportunity by walking into the Oval Office and saying "We'll get rid of abortion y the end of the first term." It will probably be a snaphot opportunity, just the right case at the right time. And if our choice is the status quo or fighting it out in the state legislatures, I say fight, and let it be out finest hour!
That said, lets look at reality. The second tier is not going anywhere. Hunter appears to be absolutely incompetent when it comes to organizing outside his district. So, that leaves us a pro-abortion extremist (Rudy, a guy who decided baby-killing is bad only two years ago (Romney) and a guy who says he'll appoint constructionists but also thinks the First amendment was written to protect incumbents from pro-life ads and that evangelical leaders are "agents of intolerance." Fred's the only one in that bunch I trust to appoint constructionists. I'm not on his bandwagon yet, but I'm sure not going to treat him like an abortionist. I leave that to people who can't figure out addition beats division.
And you know what? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama don't think we should let the states decide, either. If one of those two picks those two Supremes, we're done for a generation as far as the courts and Congress are concerned.
I’d rather not support a pro-death candidate.
***According to Petronski, this is the statement that seems to have gotten you banned. It is kinda over-the-top.
You would actually choose to withold your support from a qualified candidate for President based on what some punks do on an Internet forum?
1. See post 240.
2. Get a freakin' grip.
little gunshy after having have been burned by Bush
***Yup, that’s understandable and a reasonably accurate description of many of us.
Gosh. He's made it clear so many times, I'm surprised I still have to source it. But okay.
He reiterated the same position in May on Hannity's show.
Hold up there yourself. My point was that I didn't care when you answered my posts. I hoped that when you did answer, you would take the time to read and to answer the points I was actually making. For instance, I never said that Mitt Romney was a pro-life champion. That straw man was your creation. At first, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you just didn't understand my point.
Obviously, I was mistaken. You were not being careless or rushing. You were being dishonest. No matter how much time you take to make your posts, you'll still twist what I've really said because I show your arguments to be stupid.
Thompson may not have been a memorable pro-life champion, but he's never sold us out, and as for Tennessee being a safe state for pro-lifers, why don't you take a gander at who was in that seat before Fred and what that man's position on abortion was and is?
Now, you've added ignorance to your dishonesty. Al Gore served in the Tennessee legislature as a pro-life Democrat. He was elected to the senate and re-elected in part on credentials as a pro-life Democrat. He only became a radical pro-abortionist when he joined Bill Clinton's ticket in 1992. Once again, the truth supports what I've been saying and not the nonsense that you spout.
I've established that you are dishonest. You refuse to deal with the points that show your side of the argument to be wrong, so you lie about what I've said. I've also established that you don't know what you are talking about. You can do whatever you want with your schedule "cowboy," but until you get some education and some integrity, don't bother me again.
Bill
I'll be looking for your links to Mr. Thompson's impassioned defense of the inalienable rights of the innocent unborn. I can't wait to see them, since everything I've been able to find is feeble at best.
First, I don’t know if that’s the statement that got him banned, I didn’t claim such. But I did quote this statement because it is an example of a lie and bannable behavior.
Second, he’s not “unbanned” yet, so you’ll have to wait for your response.
Rudy the abortion extremist?
Mitt, who's been pro-life fo a whole two years now?
McCain, who has a good pro-life record but thinks free speech is extra curricular and judges should help him squelch it?
I ask that as a trhetorical question, not to "bully" you into declaring for a candidate. You see the problem? If Duncan Hunter was running his campaign with any competency, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but he hasn't done so. And if I have a choice between a pro-lifer that makes the federalist error and a gaggle of guys who are untrustworthy, pro-abortion and/or anti-constitution, I'm taking the guy who I know is solid.
As anyone who has read even a tiny fraction of my posts on FR knows, I’ll never vote for Giuliani, Romney or McCain under any circumstances. Ever. Giuliani is somewhere to the Left of Hillary, and so is Romney [he just happens to currently be lying about it]. McCain is not an option for me for many reasons, but two of the biggest are A) His disdain for the First Amendment, and B) His love of “bipartisanship.” Unfortunately, Mr. Silverback, there is a pretty strong case for Mr. Thompson suffering heavily from those two same afflictions.
Sorry, but you’re not going to convince me to support Thompson because the rest of the field sucks.
If we don’t have an acceptable candidate, one who loves the founding principles of America and has actually demonstrated clearly that this is so, and also is capable of running a winning campaign, we’re going to have to add someone else to the field.
I played the “lesser of two evils” game in 2000 with the current occupant of the Oval Office, and I’ve seen the results of that. I’m not playing again.
Applies equally to Fred.
So instead, let's look at this. :
Now, you've added ignorance to your dishonesty. Al Gore served in the Tennessee legislature as a pro-life Democrat. He was elected to the senate and re-elected in part on credentials as a pro-life Democrat. He only became a radical pro-abortionist when he joined Bill Clinton's ticket in 1992.
No. Take a gander:
While Gore's record in the Senate from 1986 until he moved to the White House in 1993 was scored solidly in favor of abortion rights by activists, his earlier words and votes are at odds with his claim in New Hampshire that he has "always been pro-choice." Under questioning, Gore later admitted he has changed his mind on some abortion matters. (Here's the source, emphasis is mine.)
So...what was it you were saying about Fred Thompson having to be a pro-lifer to keep a Senate seat from Tennessee ?
Playing "bypass good candidates until i get someone who agrees with me on every issue" is a big fat loser, too. One would also note that if life issues are important to you, you hit the jackpot with GWB.
Not really. There are still 3 to 4 thousand babies dying horribly every day, and he appointed justices who seem to be demonstrating that they’re not really that interested in acting to stop that. They’re little more than bureaucrats.
What Romney SAID years ago was made up for by what he actually DID in office. His pro-life record was excellent and he received high ratings from pro-life groups and scorn from pro-abortion groups.
_________________
Mitt's just as credible as your candidate based on his ACTUAL record:
1)Romney took the pro-life position on every abortion-related issue he’s faced while governor.
2)He vetoed an emergency contraception bill and offered a compelling case for life in the process.
3)He fought efforts to advance embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts, despite overwhelming opposition.
4)He pledged to veto any effort to expand access to RU-486, the abortion pill.
5)He has faced constant ridicule from pro-abortion organizations for refusing to give in to their demands.
6)He actively promoted abstinence education programs in Massachusetts’ schools. The abstinence movement and the pro-life movement work hand-in-hand to reduce the number of teen pregnancies and to promote true sexual health to America’s youth. http://www.americansformitt.com/prolife_perspective.html
______________________
Governor Romney: "Times of decision are moments of great clarity. Before I was Governor, the life issue was just that, an issue. But when responsibility for life or ending life was placed in my hands, I made the right decision. I chose life."
"I am evidence that your work, that your relentless campaign to promote the sanctity of human life, bears fruit." (Governor Mitt Romney's Remarks At The National Right To Life Convention Forum, June 15, 2007)
On this we agree. As do Mitt and Fred.
An op-ed written by Romney and published in the Boston Globe in July, 2005, titled "Why I vetoed contraception bill" addresses Roe v. Wade and states rights:
"I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice..... I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."
Both Fred and Mitt are running on pro-life platforms. However, “transforming the courts” is a pre-requisite to winning the pro-life position. Both Thompson and Romney agree on that. And, unless a Republican is picking the judges that’s not going to happen.
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.