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 ...
btt
>>>So, you’d make it a federal crime to intentionally terminate a new life for any reason at any time? That’s complete nonsense!<<<
Perhaps you should think through your arguments before you make them, especially on legal grounds.
First, I ask why that is nonsense. If an unborn child is a human, why should you allow that child to be murdered. Simply because it’s easy to do and the child won’t protest too much? Nice!
Or perhaps you have other reasons?
When it comes down to it, our government allows murder on 3 grounds:
1) In self-defense
2) by no-fault accident
3) by means of insanity
Numbers 2 and 3 remove personal culpability. This clearly does not apply to abortion, as it is pre-meditated. Number 1 would apply to the instance of a mother whose life is threatened by her pregnancy. At that point, terminating her pregnancy would be the equivalent of self-defense, and in that case, permissable.
I see no reason to not apply the 14th Amendment to abortion if you believe that the unborn are truly human. If not, let the abortions continue. There’s no reason to limit them in that case.
Uh, your sperms have your DNA. The one-month old child does not have her mother’s DNA but a different DNA. Your sperms do not have DNA different from you. They are a part of your body. But the baby is not a part of its mother’s body, as demonstrated by the two different DNAs.
Is this really so hard?
The comments on this thread tell me that the GOP is hopelessly split with the various factions going off in all kinds of directions. Each vowing not to support the other’s candidate.
I’m guilty of this myself. I would never vote for Rudy, Romney, mcCain, Paul, Huckaby or that dumbass from Kansas who just dropped out.
In fact, the only candidates I would vote for or Fred, Hunter or Tancredo.
Now, where does that leave us?
“On the one hand, and on the other hand.”
Some, of the more educated, will call this process “analysis.” It may be wrong analysis, but it isn’t fraught with emotion and a needless propensity to insult others for merely disagreing.
“Fortynine million dead babies might disagree with that. Unfortunately our constitution failed to protect them and they are forever silenced.”
Nah. A lot have already reincarnated.
>>>>Let’s say that again: POTUS has no constitutional role in constitutional amendment. NONE.<<<
Correct in part. But not in full. POTUSs appoint judges. They also do a great deal to determine the agendas that our nation pursues and act as the spokesman for the nation.
Lobbyist (not lawyer) Fred sold out the priceless lives of the innocent unborn for a measly $5,000. He sold his voice and influence to aid those bent on carrying out the most cruel and twisted killings of all.
Let me fill in the unstated premises that you missed. You seem to believe that passing a constitutional Amendment which would take a moral - civil rights issue out of the hands of the states and place it in the hands of the federal government is somehow unconstitutional. The 13th Amendment which banned slavery is a perfect analogy to the Human Life Amendment because both Amendments were designed to take a moral issue out of the control of the states and instead ban it on a federal level. So, do you believe that the 13th Amendment was unconstitutional?
The comments on this thread should tell you that Democrats and other anti-Republicans are participating in it.
>>>Why is it so hard for some to get that Fred thinks it’s an issue that should go to the voters in their particular state?<<<
14th Amendment of the US Constitution:
Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Easily enough answered, right?
Any of the major Republican players are likely to appoint a justice that would be vote number 5. A Democrat on the other hand will not. This would set back this opportunity for a decade or two.
So regardless of whether it is Fred/Rudy/Mitt, getting a Republican in the White House will do more for social conservative issues than allowing a Democrat to win by staying home, third party, etc.
You antiFred folks are really stretching this one. The ASSumptions are flying tonite.
I wonder if someone dug into your work in such depth they would find a similar sell out?
I read through some of the transcript and I don’t see anything wrong with Fred’s answers. He has voted pro-life when called to do so, and his arguments speak to a pro-life position. Remember, the “pro-choice” crowd is going to vote against Fred no matter what he says now because of his record. They know the truth, and so should we, but it seems that candidate character assasination to promote someone else is the modus operandi here.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Either we BELIEVE this, or we don’t. If we believe it, it is our RIGHT to defend and secure these liberties.
Where does life begin? When you have figured out that a new life has been started. YOU DON’T ABORT A MENSTRUAL CYCLE, YOU ABORT A NEW LIFE.
Well, speak for yourself. I’d vote for nearly all of them but not Julieannie or Paul. Since Paul is not going to get the nomination, that means there’s only one nominee I would not vote for. And I expect that enough people will realize that he alone totally dooms the party in the general election that he won’t get the nomination.
The GOP is split? Is ice cream cold? Of course the GOP is split. But there’s splits and there’s SPLITS. The question is which candidates widen the split into a chasm and which candidates can duct-tape the coalition sufficiently. Politics is always about coalitions.
Most of those critical of Thompson on this thread have not said they would not vote for him. We’re not at that stage yet. Each of us who favors one of the candidates is eager to give reasons why the others should not get the nomination but that does not say who they’ll vote for in the general election.
I make an exception for Julie-Babe because she alone guarantees defeat in the general. For that reason we have to shout that loud and long precisely to avoid getting her nominated.
Thompson’s mistaken on his federalist objection to a Human Life Amendment. I wish he’d think it through better, but I certainly can vote for him in the general election.
with rudy...probably not. once he gets the nomination he won’t even pretend to appeal to conservatives. He wins the white house and he’ll be the default nominee for the next election 4 years later. So that’s 8 years of a GOP president that has nothing to do with pro-life. that will affect elections to come
In desperate need for a cat herder. :-)
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.