Fred Thompson says "No" to Human Life Amendment

CBNnews.com ^ | November 4, 2007 | David Brody

[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--

[supercat]

Yep. Federalism apparently trumps the constittional rights of the unborn. This will sink Freddy.

Would a President do more to support the life of the unborn by:

1. Pushing for constitutional amendment which never ends up getting out of Congress, much less being ratified, that would ban abortions, or
2. Restoring states' authority to restrict abortions on such terms as they see appropriate, and waiting to push an amendment until it could achieve 38-state consensus.

Someone pushing the former policy may claim to be more 'interested' in protecting the life of the unborn, but I'd expect someone pushing the latter policy to be far more effective in actually protecting it.

[Theresawithanh]

I wish I had your optimism, but after 36 years of RvW...

I agree 100% with the second half of your post.

[Brices Crossroads]

Touche. Good post.

[Fishrrman]

If the pro-life battle is lost, then our nation is lost.

I'm not going to argue with this. I've personally told a friend that we are on a sinking ship, and - like the Titanic - should endeavor to find that part of the country that will remain above the water line before it all goes down.

But again, to be conservative is to be unafraid to face reality squarely in the face, whether that reality is pleasant or not.

And the reality IS that the pro-life battle is indeed "lost", if losing means that:
1 Roe v. Wade will be overturned (it won't be), or
2. A Constitutional amendment banning abortion will be passed (it won't be, either).

I accept those "realities".

I realize that others do not (that's realism, too).

Question:
I think it can be argued that if the draft was reinstated (which I advocate, but am not expecting any time soon), that it would energize the left in general, and particularly the young, as never before.

Having said that, do the anti-Roe folks ever even remotely consider that if the Supreme Court reversed Roe (sending it back to the states) that it, too, would create a groundswell constituency for The Left? One that could all-but permanently banish conservatism to the politcal back bench of America?

- John

[fatima]

((((Hugs)))I am tired of Fred.His no answer on Terri and his answer on the GOP platform for life .Move on.

[supercat]

I’m simply saying that it would be perfectly constitutional to clarify whether the 14th Amendment applies to unborn babies or not. Is that so difficult?

Yes, it is. There are many things that it is, or likely will be, possible to do with embryos that render vague the terms "create" and "destroy".

For example, please identify at which point in the following sequences of events embryos are created and/or destroyed:

1. A lab technician takes an embryo, removes a chromosome, and implants the corresponding chromosome from a different individual's adult cell; the embryo is then implanted and grows to term.
2. A lab technician takes an embryo, removes a chromosome with what would have been a fatal defect, and replaces it with a non-defective chromosome from a different individual's adult cell; the embryo is then implanted and grows to term.
3. A lab technician takes an embryo, removes a chromosome and replaces it with one from a different individual; he then removes that replacement and puts back the original; the embryo is then implanted and grows to term.
4. A lab technician takes an embryo, removes half the chromosomes, and replaces them with corresponding chromosomes from a different individual; the embryo is then implanted and grows to term.
5. A lab technician takes an embryo, removes all the chromosomes, and replaces them with chromosomes from a different individual; the embryo is then implanted and grows to term.
6. A lab technician takes an embryo which had an extra chromosome and removes one of the extra chromosomes; the embryo is then implanted and grows to term.

Does changing the DNA in a fertilized egg make it a different individual? In all cases or only some? What if the purpose of such change is to correct a fatal defect?

[Lexinom]

The problem the federalists (or Frederalists) have is this: In principle, there would not BE a declaration of Independence, or indeed anything pertaining to human experience without an a prioiri assumption of the right to life as foundational to everything - including federalism. The only rational beginning for that right to life is at the point of conception - a finite and well-circumscribed event that happens in real time and space.

Given the above, the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the unborn.

Fred Thompson is wrong on this, wagging the constitutional dog with the federalist tail.

Support Duncan Hunter instead.

[mimaw]

We aren’t in that atmosphere yet and I don’t see abortion being banned any time soon. I hate it but unfortunately it has become more a political issue than a moral issue in our society. We have to rely more on people to people interaction than some politician. Our preachers rabbis ect.. should be driving home the immorality of abortion from the pulpits and parents should take responsibility for their children. I’m not defending it’s legality I’m simply telling others what has been said to me by people who claim they were opposed to abortion but want option available for extreme cases. Rape murder incest theft illegal drugs, all these things are illegal here and still a percentage of the population engage in these activities. It’s impossible to legislate morality.

[Brices Crossroads]

We will have to disagree on that for the present. I still support him because I think his principles are solid even though I have always supported the HLA and I favored the intervention in Schiavo, probably for emotional reasons more than legal ones. In any case, God bless you and may Our Lady watch over you!

[fatima]

John,I agree not to argue.Are you on a trip or someting John.

[puroresu]

I disagree. The idea that there would be a groundswell of support for the left if Roe was overturned is media propaganda designed to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You may turn out to be right that America is lost (if abortion can’t be banned, then ultimately our nation is indeed lost). But even if that were the case, I would want the next conservative nation to remember that there were some of us who fought to protect human life against all odds. Not that we capitulated on the issue because we couldn’t win. As long as we’re fighting on this issue, we have a chance and can stop individual abortions from occurring.

The reason the pro-aborts have no problem saying they “personally” reject abortion but are “pro-choice” is because their alleged personal opposition goes in one ear and out the other of the public. As long as people are advocating abortion’s legality, no one will listen to their arguments that it’s “personally” wrong. Arguments against abortion only hold water and are effective when coming from people who take it seriously enough to want the practice banned.

If we all said, hey, abortion can’t be banned, so we’re gonna stop trying to ban it, and accept it’s legality, the number of abortions would skyrocket. Few women would take “personal” anti-abortion advice from an advocate of legality.

[WFTR]

Whereas, I don’t see it moving anyone who is a Guiliani supporter into Fred’s circle. Guiliani’s base, I believe, are the real old guard Rockafeller (sp?) repubs, of which Fred isn’t really a type that would appeal to them.

I think some of Giuliani's supporters in places like Florida, California, and much of the west are fiscal conservatives who are much less enthusiastic about the party's more zealous pro-lifers. If Fred Thompson offers to be an abortion moderate who won't take their guns, they might vote for him over Rudy Giuliani. Again, there's no telling what people will do, but that's one speculation.

Bill

[puroresu]

We can and should do both. Fight abortion morally while working toward a long range goal of illegality. We can’t do the former, though, if we concede to its legality. No one will buy it when we say abortion kills someone if we think the act should be legal, or don’t think it’s a big enough deal to be made illegal.

[Lexinom]

This is the stuff of which civil wars are made. Do you realize we fought a civil war here on a smaller issue, one that merely involved the freedom (not the lives, on which freedom depends) of a group?

[fatima]

Thank you Brices Crossroads.

[fabian]

I am dissappointed with Fred not supporting the human life ammendment. We cannot give states the right to murder unborn children...come on! There is a good reason it’s part of the republican platform. I really like Fred and know he sees abortion as horrible, but his position doesn’t go far enough. I haven’t decided to go with him or Mitt Romney yet.

[Lexinom]

You could do the right thing (instead of what is perceived as the popular thing right now) and support Duncan Hunter.

Unless you live in Iowa or NH, however, you will probably need him to win one of those states -- unless you have the courage and fortitude to do what is right rather than follow media-driven perceptions.

Remember Elijah lamenting that none righteous were left in Israel, and God's response: "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal" (1Ki 19:18). Be one of the seven thousand in our land.

[EternalVigilance]

I’ll never cast a vote for Fred Thompson for anything. Or Rudy Giuliani. Or Mitt Romney. Or John McCain. Or Mike Huckabee. Or Ron Paul.

These men don’t even believe in the God-given, unalienable rights to life and liberty.

As the Declaration of Independence asserts, the protection of those rights is the reason we even have government.

To hell with the lot of them. And the Republican Party, if the GOP is going to tear the heart out of the Reagan platform.

[Sun]

“I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. “

This is what troubles me the most. The innocent preborn baby is not free to make that decision.

We are their voices, and they need our protection.

[unspun]

Sen. Fred Thompson on abortion ~= Sen. Stephan A. Douglas on slavery