Posted on 07/18/2006 1:26:54 PM PDT by RWR8189
On abortion:
Larry Sabato (moderator): The next question goes to Mr. Allen from NBC. Julie.
Julie Carey (reporter): Mr. Allen at a previous debate when asked a question about abortion you gave an answer that confused many. You said if Roe v. Wade were no longer the law of the land you would support protecting an unborn state of development when you have a beating heart measurable brain waves sensitive to a touch inutero thumb sucking. Virginia women in particular are left wondering at what point you believe they should be permitted to have a legal oh abortion during the 1st month of pregnancy, two months, three months or beyond.
George Allen: Julie, I thank you for asking this question because I’ve always had a position of reasonable moderation on this very difficult issue. There are those that are for abortion for no reason whatsoever. And there are others that would stop abortion from the point of conception on. I think those are good medical ways of looking or scientific ways of looking when has the unborn child or fetus developed to such a stage where there's a quality of life or development or where there is a compelling interest on the part of the government, the state government to protect that unborn child or fetus.
Reason I look at it that way is that I looked legally in my own heart and also emotionally in my own heart and mind of what makes sense. We look at the end of life when people don't have a beating heart. They're brain dead. They’re not sensitive to shock and touch.
It seemed to me it would be a good criteria when there would be a compelling end. Now when 24 would occur there are those that will say it is eight weeks and a few days and maybe ten weeks and a few days. That's not the point. It is not a time. It is a quality of development of life that I think that if the state so desired they could protect that unborn child. But the real issues that are going to come up around parental notification which I'm for and a taxpayer funding of abortion which I'm against. And prohibiting partial birth abortion which is late term gruesome procedure. And on those issues I do disagree with my opponent as well.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/programs/debates/00_transcript.htm
SHIELDS: OK, and do you hope, as a United States senator next year, that a reconstituted Supreme Court, under President George W. Bush, would finally repeal Roe v. Wade?
ALLEN: I would like to see us in the Senate do several things, and in the House and also have George W. Bush as president. No. 1, get parents involved. Allow parents to be notified if their unwed minor daughter is going through the trauma of abortion.
I also would like to see us get rid of this infanticide, which is -- which is what the American Medical Association calls late-term, partial-birth abortion. I will vote to eliminate partial-birth abortion. George W. Bush would vote -- would sign the bill, as opposed to what we have with my opponent voting wrongly and, of course, siding with Clinton, who vetoes it.
Those are the sort of abortion-type issues I think that'll be clearly before the Senate and the House and the president next year.
SHIELDS: Roe v. Wade?
ALLEN: Roe v. Wade, I don't know what the Supreme Court will do. In the event that the Supreme Court allows the states greater latitude on this issue, I think that at the stage or point of development that you have a beating heart, measurable brain waves, sensitivity to touch in-utero thumb sucking, I think that people in the states could find a compelling interest to protect the unborn child at that point.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0010/07/en.00.html
When asked about abortion, [Allen] stated, "That should be decided by the states." He seemed to think the South Dakota ban is too strict and added, "I personally would add an exemption for rape and incest."
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/EliotPeace/2006/03/28/191475.html
(Regarding abortion) "Sen. Allen has consistently supported the rights of the people in their states to pass laws which reflect their views and values."
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/02/allen_romney_an.html
Abortion Issues
Indicate which principles you support (if any) concerning abortion.
a) Abortions should always be illegal.
X b) Abortions should be illegal when the fetus is viable, with or without life support.
c) Abortions should always be legally available.
d) Abortions should be legal only within the first trimester of pregnancy.
X e) Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.
X f) Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.
X g) Abortions should be limited by waiting periods and notification requirements as decided by each state government.
X h) Prohibit the dilation and extraction procedure, also known as "partial birth" abortion.
X i) Prohibit public funding of abortions and public funding of organizations that advocate or perform abortions.
j) Support "buffer-zones" by requiring demonstrators to stay at least five feet from abortion clinic doorways and driveways.
k) Provide funding for family planning programs as a means to decrease the number of abortions.
X l) Other
Abortion should be legal for gross fetal abnormality. Also, please ... contact www.Allen2000.com
http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=CNIP9093
(An "x" indicates his position.)
GEORGE ALLEN ON CROSSFIRE (CNN), JANUARY 6, 2003
ALLEN: Now, the issue of using stem cells from embryos, I'm very much in favor of research on stem cells from embryos for Parkinson's, for juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's and so forth. ... Human cloning should be banned. But it should not stop research on embryos -- stem cells from embryos that can be possibly helpful.
http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/tyleran/CNN%20Crossfire%20corpus.txt
I just have a very strong gut feeling about Allen -- I believe very much in the man to be a great President, particularly on the biggest issue of today, terrorism.
I don't claim to be an expert on voting records, political history and the like, but I absolutely can claim that when I make a commitment to something, turns out I am right (maybe even 99.9% right like Rush).
To me, the 04 election was all about two things - (1) the courts, and (2) the terrorists. Bush has come through with great SCOTUS justices, and retains the exact same mindset I hold with regard to terrorists. For me to trust Allen the way that I do means that I think he will produce on the biggest issues. For me to get behind him this early means I believe he has even greater potential than GWB to lead America to higher highs. He IS much more of a Reaganite, not only compared to Bush, but also compared to any of the other potential GOP nominees.
America will love Allen if he's given the chance.
Not to worry, Corin.
If he's against him -- and he obviously is -- it's a sure sign Allen is a winner.
Perhaps you can answer the simple questions I asked about the Senator?
I see you're been struck by "selective amnesia."
I'll be glad to answer the "simple" question you asked about Allen, just as soon as you answer ANY of the questions that have been put to you on the Simcox threads.
One would think you have enough on your plate without you spending so much time trashing a candidate who actually has a chance to win. But I guess that's you thing, isn't it: tearing down things you cannot or are not a part of.
Some people just love supporting losing candidates. Especially when they're paid to do so.
And judging from past posts, they seem determined to tear anybody down who's not paying them.
You're right and as long as freepers keep pointing that out, the naive and lurkers won't be taken in by these paid opinion shapers.
EV told me - wasn't it just yesterday? that we shouldn't be bashing conservatives!
What a hypocrite!
I'm not bashing. I'm simply asking simple policy questions...the answers to which decide whether his supposed conservatism is real.
Last time I checked, that was what FR was for.
Can you answer these simple questions, Amelia? The Senator's buddies here don't seen to be able to...
When I asked simple policy questions to find out if Simcox's supposed conservatism was real, you called it bashing and accused me of being associated with all sorts of vile organizations.
Can you answer these simple questions, Amelia? The Senator's buddies here don't seen to be able to...
I'm sure I could, but I'm waiting for you to answer mine, first. :-)
But you see, there is no question that Chris Simcox supports border security. He, more than any but a handful of Americans, has succeeded at bringing this critical national security question in front of the American people.
However, there are questions...the exact ones I asked...about Senator Allen's stances on important issues: abortion, the Second Amendment, and even the border.
See, that's your problem. You can't tell the difference between personal attacks and policy questions.
Chris Simcox "suports" Chris Simcox.
Leave it to you to impune the character of a good man while you're squealing like a stuck pig about ANYBODY questioning Chris Simcox.
So typical. Your MO for years.
Hey, Howlin.
Got any answers to the simple policy questions?
I afraid not...there are plenty of questions regarding Simcox real motive
Puhleeze...
'zactly. Don't misinterpret my comments to think that I would actually want him on our side.
Where's the fence?
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.