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 ...
You are correct. It is only through tortured liberal logic that being human and alive does not equate to being a “person” simply because you are not born yet.
>>>FRED is still Pro-Life...despite the twisted position the headline puts him in!<<<
Perhaps mildly Pro-Life. He says he’s unabashed in his Pro-Life stance, but frankly, he’s not riding a white stallion into this charge. More like a Shetland pony and a wooden sword.
Federalisms is no excuse to ignore the wording of the 14th Amendment and leave this up the individual states. Either you believe the unborn are human and protected under the 14th, or you don’t and support abortion. That’s the way I see it. The word is pretty freaking clear:
>>nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;<<
The Constitution pretty plainly speaks against the federalist outlook that Thompson takes on this issue. This is absolutely a federal issue.
if its survival is entirely dependent on the mother then that is even more reason why we should protect it. That’s why the murder of a baby is more heinous than the murder of an 18 year old.
But it is still its own life and the proof is its unique dna
Slick Willard’s got about three years of pro-life experience. You’re lecturing from the moral low ground.
>>>The federal government has enumerated powers explicitly stated in the Constitution. All other powers belong to the states or the individual. <<<
Read the 14th Amendment. This is clearly a Federal power. The states have nothing to do with it. You would think that would be the most basic premise starting with something as fundamental as the right to life.
Apparently not.
“Sounds more like a despairing prediction than a fact. Factum means “that which happened.” You are predicting the future, which cannot by definition be a fact. Some people said what you said, only about slavery or Jim Crow laws in the 1850s and in the 1950s.”
Well said.
Wow, you’re back, and with a fresh load of unalloyed lies about an opponent of Slick Willard.
The Romney Sleaze Machine grinds forward apace.
Prove it, liar.
>>>As a “Romney Republican,” do you really want to get into a contest on the various candidates’ views on abortion ? You might pick your battles more carefully.<<<
Rommney supports protecting the unborn according to the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. Fred Thompson does not.
It’s very clear whose view is superior here. And yes, I’ll debate this with you all you want. Romney’s is the correct view. Fred Thompson is Constitutionally unsound if he believes life starts at conception. Period.
Your impression is flatly wrong.
Pro-life politics have never been divorced from the desire to overturn Roe.
The Democrats' response to Robert Bork, when he stated that Roe Vs. Wade is bad law during his confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court, created the verb "to Bork," which refers to the process by which a federal judicial nominee is refused confirmation due to a constructionist view of the Constitution.
All legitimate pro-life advocacy has centered around attempts to stack the court with constructionists who see Roe as bad law. And every current Republican presidential candidate is on the record stating that either they are in favor of overturning Roe or that if Roe were overturned, it would be "okay" with them.
Contrast that with every single Democrat's position on Roe and if anyone with a tenth of a brain is paying attention they'll shut their ignorant pieholes about there not being a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Fred Thompson is pro-life, he's always been pro-life, he'll always be pro-life and he's the best Republican candidate in the field.
How is this Constitutionally unsound? If life begins at conception, then the unborn would be defended under the 10th amendment equal protection clause. When life begins falls no where into the Constitution, the Constitution defends the protected citizen. Law, science, and morality will define when one becomes a protected citizen.
“A 1 month old fetus is no more baby than my sperms in my
testicles. That mass of cells is entirely dependent on the
mother. Then when the fetus has evolved and grown to the
point where it can survive on its own with medical help,
now it becomes a baby and must be treated as a human being.”
A 35-year-old female quadriplegic mass of cells suffering from kidney failure is no more a woman than the cells of my little finger. Her mass of cells is entirely dependent on caretakers and a machine that filters her blood.
You were once a one-month old mass of cells totally dependent on your mother. Were you not human then? What were you? A wallaby or an ostrich?
In fact you were a minimally developed human. Period. Just as at the last stages of our lives all of us return to minimally developed but nonetheless full humanhood. If you are going to define humanness developmentally, God help you when you become truly helpless in your old age.
“Survive on its own with medical help” means “unable to survive on its own.” Medical help is a constantly shifting thing. Try a thought experiment. Suppose we ever did develop an artificial womb that could take a zygote and develop it to a healthy infant. Would the zygote, being able to survive with medical help, something a zygote today cannot do (simply because our medical help doesn’t extend that far, our technology doesn’t extend that far), then be a human being?
By your logic it would because what makes a foetus human is viability with medical help. Right now we don’t know how to medically help a zygote survive. But it is certainly conceivable that some day we could. Do you really, really, really want to make humanness dependent on the state of medical technology? That means that humanness is not intrinsic to us but granted to us by some outside power, by technology. But what technology grants technology can also take away. Do you really want to go there?
Fred is looking at the issue at what can actually be DONE about it, not just jawing about it. A lot of ink has been spilled, and discussions held, but that hasn't saved any babies. The only thing that will help will be for Roe v Wade to be overturned so that States can place restrictions on the procedure. That has not been possible because the courts have always fallen back on Roe.
Fred knows that if we went the Human Life Amendment route it would be years before it passed if it EVER did. The pro-abortion forces would be arrayed against it, even before it made it to the floor of either house of Congress.
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.