Replies

Thompson says he thinks Roe v. Wade is bad law and should be overturned, but he says he does not support a Human Life Amendment.
- Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard, April 23, 2007

This is the first thing I've read that indicates to me that Fred Thompson might not be FULLY 100% Pro-Life. So now my first question to him would be about the rape and incest exceptions. Duncan Hunter & Tom Tancredo support a Human Life Amendment and are against the easily abused and unacceptable loopholes of rape and incest. Though I am aware of their current poll numbers.

Prior to Roe it was legal to abort to save the life of the mother, an exceptionally rare occurrence then and even more so with today’s medical technology.

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.

While overturning Roe v Wade is certainly an important step in the right direction, if left to the States 80+ % of abortions will continue. Leaving abortion up to the States is much the same as leaving slavery up to the States.

With the incremental approach in mind, abortion must eventually be illegal everywhere.

I have read what Politicalmom has posted in 59 and I believe it to be true. Fred Thompson is Pro-Life—but not beyond overturning Roe. Still, I would like him to explain his positions in a more complete way.

Duncan Hunter would be my first choice, and even though it’s early it looks like he is a very long shot. So I am hoping Fred Thompson does run because the front three are unacceptable. I will wholeheartedly support him, but lets be completely honest about where he truly stands on the life and death issue of abortion.

This is the first thing I've read that indicates to me that Fred Thompson might not be FULLY 100% Pro-Life.

OK, time to stop this train right here.

Opposing the Human Life Amendment doesn't make someone less than fully pro-life any more than opposing the flag burning amendment makes one a flag burner. Some people just believe that the HLA is a futile effort. I'm not one of them, but I recognize that those in the pro-life fold who differ with me on it are not any less pro-life than me, they're just advocating different tactics.

We had better be awfully bloody careful to avoid getting in a circular firing squad over this issue, or we will end up with nominee Giuliani followed by President Clinton.

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 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.