Posted on 05/30/2007 12:12:08 PM PDT by gpapa
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Former Tennessee senator and well-known actor Fred Thompson has taken the first step in what could be a full-fledged candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. Thompson will file paperwork on Friday forming saying he is considering an exploratory committee allowing him to start raising funds.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
Here's why wording such as that is pushing the limits of rational. Until science can save both the mother and the alive unborn child with a pregnancy termination procedure, there will always be the rare situation when the life of each compete for imminence. Codifying with a Constitutional Amendment the approved killing of one alive citizen without reaching the established right to execute based upon criminal conviction immediately establishes an untenable law which contradicts our DofI and current first ten amendments to the Constitution. IMHO, so long as the deabte over pregnancy termination is not based in the well established principle of self defense, a rational balance based in our existing principles can not be reached to authorize the purposeful killing of an alive yet unborn innocent fellow human being.
Though not directly, the exceptions for rape and incest actually address the notion of self defense, as in pregnancy brings an increased mortality risk and the one impregnated under circumstances of rape or minor child incest must be viewed from the standpoint of a right to defend the innocent one upon whom criminal act has been perpetrated. A rational approach can only be achieved when we recognize the underlying principle which makes pregnancy termination a reasonable option for protecting life of the one unlawfully forced to give life support. THEN we may apply that principle to even embryo-aged innocent human beings and when science achieves the ability to save even an implanted embryo we will have a natural flow to apply defense of the embryo-aged beings as well as the older life of the woman.
To attack Fred based upon not being 100% in defense of the unborn when no rational balance is yet achievable is nonsense. If we really want to get somewhere in the pro-life impasse, we will alter the debate to address the notion of human lives having a right to self defense where the individual life is in peril. Current law and perspective for pro-life does not establish that foundation and we see it cannot be transferred to protecting embryo-aged humans.
I like “Hunter/Thompson” best!
John Hawkins: Would you like to see Roe v. Wade overturned?
Duncan Hunter: Yes. You know, I’m the author of the personhood-at-conception bill which right now has over 100 co-sponsors ...that would define personhood as moment of conception, so, it would allow us to have a reversal of the effects of Roe v. Wade without a constitutional amendment.
http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=114155
You bet!!!!!
Duncan Hunter, who is PASSIONATE about the life issue, absolutely CAN WIN.
He is conservative in every way, and he is what the base is looking for.
“I wrote the border fence bill and it is not ambiguous. It is not a suggestion. It was passed and signed by the President. It is the law. It has been over six months since we passed that law and only 11 miles have been built. At that rate, it will take us 20 years to build it. If elected President, I will build all 854 miles in six months. In the meantime, it is still the law and the fact that only 11 miles have been built is unacceptable.” - Congressman Duncan Hunter
In my view, a whole new right to privacy was created by the leftist judiciary to justify their creating new law outside the mechanism of legislation. It was a gross abuse of power, IMHO - and should the court ever overturn those decisions, and I pray it will, it'll send contraception, abortion and homosexual conduct back to legislature(s) where they belong.
Viewed as a criminal matter (self defense) abortion would be appropriate for the States' legislature as you say. Viewed as a right, it seems to me that Congress would have to take it up as a Constitutional Amendment.
Either way would be better than what we have.
Just to stay on the up and up, could you provide a link to back up that claim, please?
Last I saw, he said "he wasn't ready to go there yet," in reference to abandoning the McCain-Feingold approach for the conservative one.
If he's said something in the interim to the contrary that I've missed, I'd like to know about it.
Thanks in advance.
No he can't. Not if he's going to continue to try to run a "traditional" campaign; he's already relegated himself to failure.
Sorry to be harsh, but get a grip on reality -- he's been running for months, can't crack 2% in a national poll, has nowhere near the fundraising or organization -- or the ability to get either -- that the top-tier candidates have. House members with no elected statewide office don't get nominated. Period. if you want to change that traditional status, you can't play the same traditional campaign game.
Unless he radically changes how he's doing things, at best he's auditioning for VP or a cabinet position.
First: I plan on voting for Fred Thompson, not just in the general against the Hildabeast but probably in the primary instead of Duncan Hunter, especially if the polls continue to go up for Fred and stay low for Duncan.
And to show what I hope is received as “good faith” I want to correct a technical, but important, mistake I made in my post. I said “Duncan Hunter & Tom Tancredo support a Human Life Amendment…” Actually Duncan Hunter introduced the Right to Life Act*, which according to the text “would provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception.” So it’s legislation, not an Amendment to the US Constitution. Here is one sentence from Hunter’s Act that clearly illustrates that he is FULLY “100% Pro-Life” -- “I firmly believe that life begins at conception and that the preborn child deserves all the rights and protections afforded an American citizen.” To be clear, that is what I am hoping Fred Thompson will go on the record to say, or words to that effect.
Mr. Silverback, you said: “Some people just believe that the HLA is a futile effort. I'm not one of them”
I am.
I would wholeheartedly welcome the enactment of a Human Life Amendment, but currently under the circumstances an HLA is sadly a futile effort and a complete waste of time. Which is quite probably why Duncan Hunter is introducing the Right to Life Act and not an Amendment, and quite possibly, hopefully, why Fred Thompson says he does not support a Human Life Amendment.
But the crux of my post remains: Is Fred Thompson 100% Pro-Life to the extent that Duncan Hunter is? Does he believe what Congressman Hunter is on record saying: “I firmly believe that life begins at conception and that the preborn child deserves all the rights and protections afforded an American citizen.” As President will Fred Thompson do something beyond appointing federal judges, something like publicly supporting Duncan Hunter type legislation? That is why in my previous post I wrote: I would like him to explain his positions in a more complete way. I’m guessing he will once he formally enters.
We have a right, and even an obligation to ask these questions of those running for office, especially POTUS.
And that bill to build 800+ miles of fence is now being undermined by the current efforts to hide amnesty in a controlled immigration bill, cutting the fence to single row and around three hundred miles!
And that bill to build 800+ miles of fence is now being undermined by the current efforts to hide amnesty in a controlled immigration bill, cutting the fence to single row and around three hundred miles!
.
No he can't. Not if he's going to continue to try to run a "traditional" campaign; he's already relegated himself to failure.
Sorry to be harsh, but get a grip on reality -- he's been running for months, can't crack 2% in a national poll
this was your reaction to DUNCAN HUNTER. i want to caution you -- NOT ALL the voices are in yet! you judge in haste! there is a large segment of the party, organizations and funds that are sitting back watching. they wait for those in the race to show what they are worth, what they are made of, to see who will stay and who will drop out.... they wait for the right TIMING and right OPPORTUNITY to place themselves, well positioned, behind their candidate for the primary. don't be so quick to judge, or think you know it all. not everyone has 'checked in' yet.
I went to one of Thompson's blogs and it said that he has some form of cancer that is in remission. Have you heard that?
Naysay is not in my vocabulary.
Bill Clinton only had 2% in OCTOBER of ‘91, and this is only MAY 31st.
It’s way to early to give up on having THE BEST pro-life, conservative candidate, and I’m really quite disappointed in my fellow pro-life conservatives for giving up so easily.
I like Thompson, and will support him STRONGLY, if he is the nominee, but he does have flaws which I don’t like as he co-sponsored the McCain/Feingold bill, and I don’t like it that he was an actor in Law and Order, a show which I boycott because it is antiCatholic.
But I don’t expect a candidate to be perfect, and like Thompson far better than Rudy McRomney.
However, it’s way too early to give up on having a super conservative candidate on all counts, who has so much passion for the life issue, so I will contribute to Hunter’s campaign, write letters to editors, call talk shows, and post on FR for DUNCAN HUNTER!
Thompson, McCain and Giuliani have all had cancer and are all currently in remission.
“And that bill to build 800+ miles of fence is now being undermined by the current efforts to hide amnesty in a controlled immigration bill, cutting the fence to single row and around three hundred miles!”
How do the politicians expect us to “buy” the amnesty bill, when they don’t even build the doggone fence? The elites really must think we’re not too bright.
Duncan Hunter, when he was on Hannity’s show recently, asked us to contact President Bush and ask him to build the fence for the very bill that President Bush signed into law.
“this was your reaction to DUNCAN HUNTER. i want to caution you — NOT ALL the voices are in yet! you judge in haste! there is a large segment of the party, organizations and funds that are sitting back watching. they wait for those in the race to show what they are worth, what they are made of, to see who will stay and who will drop out.... they wait for the right TIMING and right OPPORTUNITY to place themselves, well positioned, behind their candidate for the primary. don’t be so quick to judge, or think you know it all. not everyone has ‘checked in’ yet.”
Way too soon to give up.
Bill Clinton wasn’t even heard of much at this point in time, but he and his supporters didn’t give up.
Each and every pro-life conservative has to fight as hard as liberals.
...what a bunch of weenies the anti-Fred crowd is showing themselves to be. He’s the one man that can wrestle this country from the grasps of the unthinkable (hillary, obamamama, edwards), and all he gets is flak.
He should be getting your thanks.
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.