Replies

There are ways to word sentences which avoid the fundamental issues and jump the argument to the irrational extremes immediately.
The following wording does that and I'll address why:

"So as I now understand it, Fred Thompson is as Pro-Life as Justice Antonin Scalia, both are of the Federalist position. They think Roe v Wade should be overturned so the "legality" of abortion is decided on a State by State basis, BUT both oppose the federal government criminalizing abortion, meaning neither see the unborn as Constitutional persons that deserve equal protection under the law. That is not even close to a 100% Pro-Life position."

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 debate 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.

Well put. - Everyone should agree on the constitutional principle that both a pregnant woman and "an alive yet unborn innocent fellow human being" have the right to self defense.

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.

Yep, the pregnant woman cannot be "- unlawfully forced to give life support -". Only with due process of law can she be so forced.

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.

Exactly. It is constitutionally and medically impossible [at this time] to protect the self defense rights of both a pregnant woman and "an alive yet unborn innocent fellow human". - As you say:

"- 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. -"

In effect, demanding that Fred Thompson [at this point in time] support "100 percent" total bans on abortion is playing into the political rhetoric of our opponents. That position on this issue makes a candidate unelectable.