Posted on 11/04/2007 1:38:41 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
It is not dead, is it? Therefore it is alive.
“Fred believes life begins at conception and abortion is the taking of a human life.”
No, he does not. Murder is banned in all fifty states, if a state tryed to change that, the federal government would rightly step in. If he trully believes “abortion is the taking of human life” he would take steps as president to ensure it ends in all 50 states. His rhetoric is double talk. I do not mean to insult Senator Thompson or his supporters by saying this. I just believe he is engaging in the usual “waffle” to avoid taking sides. He can’t have it both ways. The most of the moral base of the GOP will not activilly support a candidate that holds such a “fence sitting” position. I’m not even sure they will passively support him either. He is killing his chances to win the primary. Votes that could go to him, will go to Huckabee or Hunter (neither of which can win) and it will result in Guiliani winning the primary but causing the moral GOP base to defect in a general election.
Senator Thompson could be a fine president, but he sucks as a candidate.
I don’t think a Maryland gun owner will appreciate the idea that 2nd Amendment infringements can only be remedied at the state and local levels.
Y’know...I really want to like Fred...he just makes it hard sometimes.
In other words, you don't want the Federal courts to repeal their abortion rulings?
If the Frederalist would support repeal of the 17th Amendment, then his devotion to federalism would effectively be backed by a pledge to take action to ensure federalism and secure the 10th amendment. Right now, the Frederalist, should he become Prez, would only be able to support federalism through vetoes and supreme court nominations.
Fred Thompson nailed this thing. It needs to be settled at the state level and he also said that Roe v Wade needs to be overturned.
It will last in the platform forever, since the platform is meaningless and no GOP members in elected positions have any intention of promoting such an amendment - since to do so would be the end of their careers.
“Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports”
I don’t think Senator Thompson is pro-choice. However, I don’t think he is trully pro-life either. He is sitting on a fence just like so many others have done before him. That is why abortion continues to be practiced in this “civilized” nation of ours.
sometimes there’s a fine line between federalism and ducktheissueism. Just like a certain libertarian who is in favor of shrimp projects for his district only to vote against them when the bill is likely to pass just to say he’s against pork.
Romney is no conservative. Until 2-1/2 years ago, he was sitting on a 35 year history of supporting RvW and abortion on demand as a Constitutional right. Then he had what some folks said was an epiphany. What I see as another case of Romney’s use of political expediency. Even though Romney is better than Rooty Toot, sorry, Mitt has little chance of winning the nomination.
Its between Rooty and Fred.
Maybe not "completely" ? The 14th Amendment grants equal protection, but I don't think that's not absolute protection.
E.g. if it came to a mother's life vs. the child's life (an extremely rare situation with modern medicine), abortion would still continue to be legal in that circumstance.
Also I should correct my earlier post. On second look I think it's the "equal protection" clause that should be understood to protect the unborn (not the "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" clause -- since it isn't "the State" taking the child's life).
Text of Section 1 of 14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Then it's over.
Don't be so quick to judge. Fact is, we have no idea what will happen once the voting starts.
>>>>>Senator Thompson could be a fine president...
Thanks, he will be. Get use to it.
I know, you'd tell your daughter to suffer the consequences.
First of all, I apologize for the “what are you smoking” crack. It was uncalled for.
I didn’t say that A = B in all ways. Obviously a zygote is not equal to a 35 year old man in many ways. All I said was that the being of both is the same: human being rather than amoebic or frog or cantaloupe being.
We are all constantly in development. I am the same being I was when I was three minutes old but my height, weight, consciousness, motor skills, age and so forth are different. The baby three minutes before it is born is different in many ways from three minutes after it is born—inside a womb, outside a womb, breathing in vastly different ways, and so on and so forth. But it did not become a human being after not being a human being the moment it was born. It WAS a human being all the time. The only issue is whether this identity of being, despite immense differences in other ways, continues all the way back to conception. And unless one can point to a line of demarcation in terms of be-ing at some point between conception and birth and adolescence and middle age and old age, then the “is” of the thing IS human at conception.
No one doubts that an infant shares identical being with a fully developed adult. The difference in development is huge. But degree of development is not a difference in be-ing. Clearly immense development takes place in the womb. At what point, however, did something non-human become human? What portion or point of the development constitutes a change in ISNESS?
So, that A can become B does not mean A = B is both true and false. A does not equal B in degree of development but in terms of being, something that can become something IS always what it IS: frog, muskrat, salamander. Tadpoles become adult frogs. Is tadpole being different being from frog being? No. Tadpoles by definition are immature stages of the development of frogs. As a category of being, they are either developed frogs, partly developed frogs, less developed frogs, but they never go from being applesauce to being frogs. Apples can go from being apples on a tree to being applesauce but the appleness is the same. Its consistency changes when the apple is “sauced” but the being is still apple being, even though some sugar and cinnamon may have been added. (You can have applesauce without adding anything to it. It may not be to your taste but what makes apples into appelsauce is saucing the apples.)
A human zygote goes from that to an embryo to a foetus to an infant to a child to an adolescent to a young adult to a middle-aged man to an old man but all the way through he is a human being, rather than at one point being a mule zygote and then shifting to a human embryo or perhaps going from mule zygote to mule embryo but turning into a human foetus before being born as an infant armadillo.
Or, at least so common sense would say.
That's half a workweek.
Five thousand dollars.
In blood money.
This wasn't to pay him for his interpretation of the law. This was to pay him for his best efforts to persuade others to change the law to the abortion industry's liking.
He also pushed through McCain-Feingold. It would NOT have passed without his help. As a result of McCain-Feingold, pro-life organizations have been effectively silenced, kept from pressing home the pro-life message in an effective manner during the time when it matters most.
Now Fred advocates allowing the abortion mills to continue their ghastly business state-by-state, apparently considers it unseemly and wrong to propose and push for a national amendment that would accomplish a great good for the unborn analogous to the great good that the 13th Amendment accomplished for blacks.
And don't tell me that such an amendment would never be passed. Great moral good demands the vocal support of great moral men regardless of whether an evil world will permit implementation of that good.
As W.H. Auden put it, "All I have is a voice, to undo the folded lie."
Fred would leave the lie folded and keep muted the voices of the innocent unborn. Shame on him!
Yes, Fred is PRO-LIFE. The twisted headlines are for the idiots that do not READ or listen. Fred was excellent on “Meet the Depressed” this morning. Russert is a JERK, there is no other word for him.
As for an amendment, all that needs to be done is for Congress to tweak the 14th Amendment. “the rights of the unborn”
Enough of legislations, laws, and other Big Federal Government Intervention. Amend a couple of items here and there, get rid of old laws, give the States back the right to make most decision and CUT BIG GOVERNMENT.
When Conservatives start screaming for more laws, I raise my eyebrows and question their Conservativism.
Did you even read my post? Fred has 100% pro-life voting record and NARAL and other pro-choice groups hate him. You are ignoring the facts to promote your agenda. Ignoring facts does not make for a good argument....sorry.
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.