BOGUS NON SEQUITUR!
The question was not anything about who may or may not be seeking to undertake whatever procedure.
The question is specific and you have the guts to honestly answer it or you are a coward who will not.
Do you support the position that States may Constitutionally Define the Unborn as Property?
YES or NO?
If yes, fine !
Vote for Fred... He agrees with that Position and it is the only Principle listed for his entire platform on his website.
NO... well then. You can vote for someone ELSE then, cause this IS what Fred is all about. He does not have ANY other issues listed at all.
This has now been made very clear. So answer or avoid. But you have been called.
Because of the decision of the Supreme Court, in Roe-v-Wade, all laws against abortion were struck down. As a result, we've had, for all intents and purposes, abortion for any reason at any time in the pregnancy, since 1973. It took a few years and a lot of media propaganda about the 'right to choose', but there was, for a while, a majority of folks who agreed with the media.
Then along came Operation Rescue, and people began to see that the media had been lying to them all along. Pro-lifers were not rabid, anti-female men who just wanted to force women to have as many babies as they possibly could. There were all kinds of folks in the pro-life movement; men, women, young and old, and they began being heard past the media filters. As a result of that, and also as a result of what folks were seeing young women who had bought into the lie go through, as a result of their abortions, their hearts and minds began to change.
Unfortunately, there are still many selfish people in this country who will never want to go back, but we do have the chance to save a lot more babies than are being saved today. If Roe-v-Wade can be overturned, the issue will go back to the states. At that point, we pro-lifers have a golden opportunity to make our case directly to the voters in our states, and may just change even more hearts and minds. We may never get to the point where all babies can be saved because most states' voters will require that exceptions be made in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger, but that will stop about 98% of all abortions in those states. That is a far better situation than we are in today. And who knows, after a few years of that, we may even get to the point in this country where folks are ready to support a Human Life Amendment, but that is many years off. We have a lot of work to do before then.
What Fred Thompson is proposing is that important first step of overturning Roe-v Wade, but that won't happen unless there is a Republican in the Presidency to appoint justices who will do just that.
By snubbing candidates who don't feel like jumping to the tune of Values Voters or any other self appointed arbiters, and even considering sitting out the race, or even worse, voting third party, that possibility will be lost, probably forever, because the next President will have the opportunity to appoint 2 or even 3 justices to the Supremes. If that person is a Democrat, you can kiss any restrictions on abortion goodbye, and you can expect court challenges to any state laws banning homosexual marriage, and those laws will likely be struck down by a liberal court. If you don't like the direction the country has been going in for the last 30 years, you'll see it get even worse if the Democrats are allowed to return to the White House.