Posted on 11/04/2007 1:38:41 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
Fred Thompson told Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that he DOES NOT support a Human Life amendment. That position is part of the GOP platform. Here’s what the 2004 GOP platform says:
"We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions." Here’s what Thompson said about it lifted from today’s Meet The Press transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about an issue very important in your party’s primary process, and that’s abortion.
MR. THOMPSON: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: This is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution,” “we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?
MR. THOMPSON: No.
MR. RUSSERT: You would not?
--snip--
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
That is ridiculous!
95% of all abortions performed in the US today are carried out by the woman's choice and based on issues of social stigma. IOW, most abortions are carried out as a birth control measure.
Only 5% of all abortions performed in the US today have anything to do with issues related to the health or life of the mother, or regarding cases of rape and incest.
Whoa, wait a minute. He voted for a FEDERAL Bill banning anyone transporting an under-aged girl across a state line to have an abortion..and you consider that a Federalist position? The Federalist position is letting STATES make laws banning such transport. Or do you consider it “Interstate Commerce?”
yes but if you don’t do this carefully you’ll end up with lots of illegal abortions
it sure is interstate commerce. Abortion isn’t free.
Do what carefully?
Oops, time for FReepers to dump Thompson and unite behind Duncan Hunter.
Thompson is a pretender, Hunter is the real thing.
ban abortions. whether it is by state or federal
Uh, what is it that begins at human conception then? Frog-theory? Angel-life? Churned butter? Imaginary amoeba-ism? Imaginary human life? Real human life? Real salamander life? Fake horse-life?
Unless interrupted naturally or unnaturally, what begins at conception becomes an inexorably increasingly baby-like baby. At conception it appears much less like a baby than it does a week later, a month later, nine months later.
But if it is not a human life at conception, then what in the world IS (beingness, isness) it before it becomes a real human life? At what does some massive change take place such that before that point it WAS not human (a muskrat, perhaps) and after that point it IS human? What IS it before the supposed point where it suddenly becomes human?
It’s really not nearly so difficult as you want to make it. But the pro-aborts are laughing themselves silly over the success of their obfuscations.
Fred`s the real deal.
Hunter`s chances are fading away quickly.
Yawn.
huh? He is leading in most of the early states. This thing will be over in January.
| REAL CLEAR POLITICS AVERAGES | ||
| Election 2008 | Republicans | Democrats |
| National | Giuliani + 13.7 | Clinton + 21.8 |
| Iowa | Romney + 13.5 | Clinton + 7.2 |
| New Hampshire | Romney + 8.0 | Clinton + 19.2 |
| South Carolina | Romney + 0.3 | Clinton + 15.0 |
| Florida | Giuliani + 10.8 | Clinton + 26.5 |
| Charts (D) Charts (R) Dem vs. Rep Latest Polls | ||
Do you want to make it the law of the land that we execute women who have an abortion?
Rudy Giuliani claims to support a constitutional amendment for the line item veto (because he is such a strict constructionist), do not forget the fact that this loser sued congress to stop the line item veto from becoming law. This is pandering at its worst. Good luck getting a CA for anything. We need solutions now, what legislation can be passed to reduce abortions (hint to the fred08 campaign).
Regarding states rights before roe-v-wade , abortion was ILLEGAL in at least 30 states. If there had never been roe-v-wade, abortion would most likely be illegal in the USA today. This would be because of states rights, not in spite of states rights.
~We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion.
Dionysius.... wrote: “Look, if you are for the overturning of R v W then you are for at least the opportunity to criminalize abortion, either as a federal or a state crime.”
I’m for overturning Roe v Wade and returning the issue to the states. In my own state, I would fully support laws severely restricting abortion. On the other hand, I would oppose a law that made it illegal to have an abortion in every circumstance. Exceptions for rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is threatened make sense to me, even though there is always the potential for abuse. More specifically, I would never support abortion for reasons such as mental anguish, lack of financial resources, inconvenient timing, etc. No matter what the law states, each of us will stand before God to answer for our sins. Women who kill their unborn children, even in cases of rape or incest, should keep this fact in mind as there is a higher law than man’s.
It is obvious that our opponents prefer to error on the side of death.
Those are good questions. The Christian in me answers, “It is life!”
But not everyone is a Christian. Many believe it is a lump of flesh with potential for life. I think, by the evidence, that you can reasonable prove life exists at about 20 weeks, since deliveries are possible then - although sustaining the life is difficult. But arguably, by 20 weeks (4 1/2 months) one can show the womb is nothing more than a superb life-support system.
As medicine advances, I think it will be increasingly clear that life has already begun at conception. But as a limited government type, I am uncomfortable with putting my religious views into law.
For this stage, I’d be content to say that we know life has begun by 20 weeks, and leave it to personal choice before that - barring advances in medical science that could show life begins earlier than that.
My political guess is that many states would leave things where they are at, but perhaps half would increase restrictions on abortion - a step in the right direction far likelier than the SC outlawing abortion!
"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree."
I'm sure every state has a similar definition on the books. But like another poster said, state or federal doesn't matter, just ban it somehow.
Nothing I wrote depends in the slightest on religion. What are you smoking. It’s straight philosophy: what is something? Something cannot be nothing. So if it becomes (comes to BE, IS) human at some point after conception, what WAS (what did it used to BE) before that point? It wasn’t (did not used to BE) a frog. It WAS not an imaginary human life. It WAS not a theoretical goldfish. Among the universe of things it might have BEEN, what’s wrong with the assertion that it WAS then what it IS now: a human life? Unless you can identify clinically, biologically, philosophically some line of demarcation by which the “thingness” changes from non-human to human, you have to say that it was human from the moment it WAS anything.
And NONE of that has anything whatsoever to do with religion.
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.