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 ...
If we can’t stop killing unborn babies then we don’t deserve to survive as a country much less as a party.
Sun wrote: “What he is saying is that people ought to be free to kill the unborn. What was he thinking?”
That’s not it. He said he prefers to go back to the pre-Roe v Wade days. He clearly wants abortion greatly restricted or eliminated at the state level, but he doesn’t want to give embryos the same constitutional rights as persons because of what that entails. His approach is both moral and pragmatic, because 2/3 of the house and senate and 3/4 of the states will never pass an amendment that makes ALL abortions illegal and gives the same rights to a newly conceived embryo as a person.
Romney is phony enough to get nominated, but not phony enough to get elected.
You can see applying the definition of murder, but you don't think the murderers should be punished?
Finally, an accurate comment.
In order for any of the political goals expressed in this thread to come about, the people have to change their minds about this issue.
The largest number of minds have to be changed to allow a Constitutional amendment to pass.
The libertarian/RINO pipedream of a nation which is socially liberal, but fiscally conservative and tough on national defense, is just that.....a pipedream. The reason is simple. Someone who thinks abortion should be legal isn't likely to be someone who is willing to fend for himself (or herself) in the free market, or to fight for their country. Sure, there are exceptions, but as a general rule, that's the way it is. So when countries become like Canada or many European nations, where social conservatism is all but dead, they soon have national health care, confiscatory taxes, strict gun control, speech and thought crime legislation, and a populace willing to appease rather than fight.
It seems as if the majority of the politicians are either pro-aborts or apathetic.
Maybe more education would help, at least with the apathetic ones. I’ve lost most of my hope on the pro-aborts.
EV wrote: “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.”
All children should be conceived in love and cherished from the moment of conception, but zygotes are not “persons.” Are you prepared to treat abortion (at any stage for any reason) as murder? If so, what realistic chance do you ever have of achieving that aim?
Just because something is morally wrong doesn’t mean the federal government should be involved in stopping it.
Fred says: “I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. “
As I posted before, 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.
And I am not impressed with pre-Roe v Wade days. In my own state, we had legal abortion BEFORE Roe.
Taking an innocent life is against God’s law, and against the Constitution.
“Just because something is morally wrong doesn’t mean the federal government should be involved in stopping it.”
It is the government’s DUTY to protect innocent life for the unborn, as well as the born.
The purpose of politicians in our system is to acquire power from us by getting elected and re-elected.
That's how we exercise our sovereignty.
Being convincingly anti-abortion is a ticket to defeat.
Lots of politicians are making their way by lying or equivocating about it, sure - but not by promosing a ban.
When the people support a ban, then, yes, the politicians will, too.
There’s a difference between pragmatism and capitulation. It would be one thing to say that the votes aren’t there right now for a pro-life amendment, but if elected I would work to push our nation further in that direction with passage of such an amendment a long-term goal. It’s another thing entirely to toss the amendment overboard in hopes of appearing “moderate” on the issue so as not to alienate the media and the promiscuity crowd.
That's an electable position for a politician - as long as, after they win, they don't do anything about it.
That's kind of where the Republican majority has been on this issue, like an easy girl who requires that you tell her you love her.
Politicians are generally to the left of the public, not the other way around.
Case in point: Affirmative action. The voters have repeatedly supported banning it, but it does no good because both parties support it. Another example is immigration. Huge majorities want real enforcement and oppose things like drivers licenses for illegals, but the politicians ignore us. The reason is that on those issues, even the conservatives have been “taught” by the media to capitulate.
If we follow your advice on abortion, the same thing will happen. First, it’ll be twice as hard to convince people that abortion should be banned if only a handful of marginalized politicians support banning it. But even if we were able to garner a huge majority for banning it, the idea that it shouldn’t be banned would by that time have become entrenched in both political parties and nothing would happen.
Sun wrote: “Taking an innocent life is against God’s law, and against the Constitution.”
It IS against God’s law, but it is NOT unconstitutional to have an abortion. The SCOTUS interprets the constitution, and abortion is presently legal and a constitutionally protected right. Of course you knew that.
A return to the days before Roe v Wade would be fine with me. Abortion should be up to the states to decide, not the federal government. Of course there are many posters who agree with you that zygotes (newly fertilized eggs) should be persons, but few have so far been willing to discuss the ramifications of such a thing.
There is nothing in the Constitution about a right to an abortion. According to the 10th amendment, that makes abortion a state issue.
Fred wants to see Roe v Wade ended and abortion on demand abolished as the national policy of the US government. That means returning the issue of abortion back to the states, were it resided for 200 years.
Fred believes life begins at conception and abortion is the taking of a human life. Fred doesn’t support a right to life amendment mainly because he doesn't believe making criminals of women who get abortions is the correct decision. But even if he did support such an amendment, the chances of it becoming law anytime soon are slim to none. Besides, the POTUS has no say in the amendment process. That power belongs to the Congress and to the states.
As for Mitt Romney. For 35 years prior to 2005, Mitt Boy supported Roe v Wade as the law of the land and abortion on demand as a womans Constitutional right. Since he decided to run for POTUS, Mitt`s become pro-life. Obviously, another case of Romney placing political expediency before political principle.
Btw, as Fred said today on MTP:
"... that’s been my position the entire time I’ve been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided."
"Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government ... serves us very, very well. I think that’s true of abortion. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned, and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days."
"My public position has always been the same. I’ve been 100 percent pro-life in every vote that I’ve ever cast in, in my service to the United States Senate."
"I had an opportunity to vote on an array of things over eight years, whether it be partial birth abortion, whether it be Mexico City policy, whether it be transporting young girls across state lines to avoid parental notification laws and all that--100 percent pro-life."
"... my legal record is there, and that’s the way I would govern if I was president. I would take those same positions. No federal funding for abortion, no nothing that would in any way encourage abortion."
"I think life begins at conception."
"I do not think that you can have ... a law that would be effective and that would be the right thing to do, ... which potentially would take ... young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, we’re going to put them in jail to do that. I just don’t think that that’s the right thing to do. It cannot change the way I feel about it morally, but legally and practically, I’ve got to recognize that fact. It is a dilemma that I’m not totally comfortable with, but that’s the best I can do in resolving it in my own mind."
Fred is a principled conservative, who is also a federalist. Something you and others do not comprehend.
Adios!
We’re not even there yet. The first step is to nominate someone who agrees with the Reagan pro-life platform - that unborn babies are persons and therefore protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
By the way, you might want to actually go read the closing paragraphs of Marbury vs. Madison. Marshall said it as clear as a bell: The court is subject to the Constitution.
All three branches are.
He’s still miles closer on the issue than Rudy Giuliani but the truth of the matter is that a Constitutional amedment outlawing abortion is a straw dog at this time in our history. Raise your hand if you REALLY think that 2/3rds of the House, 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the State Legislatures are going to sign off on the HLA when we can’t even keep people in our own party true on the issue.
Maybe through prayer, hearts and minds will change in another 25-50 years and such an amendment might pass. But Fred will be dead by then so it certainly won’t come across his desk as hypothetical president.
The expedient thing for Fred to say is “of course” he’s for the HLA (knowing he’ll never need to be accountable for it) but he gave the answer he believes is correct whether it was the politically smart thing to say or not. I applaud the honesty even though I question the wisdom of such an answer.
Reagan Man, Reagan supported the pro-life amendment to the Constitution. It says nothing about making women criminals. That’s just NARAL propaganda that’s been repeated so often even some conservatives believe it.
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.