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--

[Sudetenland]

A theocracy, to which SubGeniusX was referring can and most probably would be more dangerous than a Marxist regime. The world has wittnessed a number of them, perhaps they have just slipped your mind.

The Spanish Inquistion was one of those periods (cue Michael Palin). Much more relevant is the war in which we are currently engaged. The Taliban rule of Afghanistan was a theocracy. Iran, the formost sponsor of terrorism is a theocracy. The goal of the Global Islamic Jihadists is to create a theocracy.

Ergo, yes theocrats are as dangerous as Marxists. They have the same mindset as Marxists, and they value human life the same as Marxists.

[Kevmo]

Thanks for the ping, bmflr later.

[bjs1779]

Thanks 8MM.

[Sun]

They can’t win without the pro-life vote, and THIS pro-lifer “Sun” looks at their history, not a recent flip flop in order to win.

Voters need to do their research before voting, particularly before voting in the primaries. Duncan Hunter and Sam Brownback attended the pro-life march in D.C. I look at that.

Duncan Hunter keeps introducing the personhood-at-conception bill each year, and Sam Brownback has been a loud voice for the voiceless.

Sam Brownback, of course, dropped out, and I didn’t agree with him on other issues, but I know he is a strong and sincere pro-lifer.

The strongest pro-lifer left is Duncan Hunter, and a couple of the others aren’t bad.

[Sun]

The SCOTUS deliberately misinterpreted the original Constitution on Roe, and other issues, that’s why they are called activist judges.

You keep talking about zygotes, and yes they are human life, but I wonder if you are trying to desensitize the abortion issue by getting people to focus on zygotes, because they don’t look like a baby yet.

Here are the preborn children that they ARE aborting:

Click and take a look:

http://www.cwcobgyn.com/images/4dpics_3.jpg

ULTRASOUND OF PREBORN BABY PIX

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b253/mware/18week125-1.jpg

18-week Old Fetus

[free_life]

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

Yep. I think I will say NO to Fred.

[free_life]

Here is Pro life >>>

I will do whatever it takes to protect the unborn and end abortion. We need a right to life amendment to protect the children in the womb.

I was a Fred supporter behind Duncan Hunter my first choice, but I don't believe Fred is Pro life after watching and listening to him these last few months and that is that. Goodbye Fred.

[Sun]

I don’t think Fred knows about the 5th and 14th amendment.

Duncan Hunter does, and refers to them.

[CitizenUSA]

Sudetenland wrote: “Ergo, yes theocrats are as dangerous as Marxists. They have the same mindset as Marxists, and they value human life the same as Marxists.”

So, you actually believe the Spanish Inquisition was as deadly as the Killing Fields? That’s ridiculous!

SOME theocratic regimes are deadly to a small degree. Nearly all Marxist regimes have proven deadly to large numbers of people.

Let me guess? You just don’t like religion, do you?

[CitizenUSA]

Sun wrote: “You keep talking about zygotes, and yes they are human life, but I wonder if you are trying to desensitize the abortion issue by getting people to focus on zygotes, because they don’t look like a baby yet.”

Before you wonder about my purposes, please read my prior posts. The point being, I’m not ready to imprison or execute women for destroying zygotes. Yet, if they are are declared “persons” they would indeed be entitled to equal protection under the law.

We all know a new human life starts at conception. A zygote is in fact, a completely unique human life. Additionally, ALL children should be conceived in loving, committed relationships. None should be intentionally killed.

Yet, this isn’t a perfect world, and you will never convince a majority that women should be executed for killing zygotes. Yet, the premeditated murder of a “person” does indeed require life in prison or execution in many states.

I have written before that I personally believe children conceived by rape or incest should be born and then given up for adoption if the mother doesn’t want them. Again, it is highly unlikely you’ll ever convince a majority that women who are raped should be punished for killing the unborn baby (at least very early in the pregnancy).

So, I totally sympathize with those who want to protect the lives of the unborn, but I also believe it’s VITALLY important to actually win these battles and save as many of the children that can be realistically saved. When pro-lifers demand 100% protection of the unborn in all circumstances (rape and incest notwithstanding) they are simply not taken seriously. Rather than reaching too far and achieving nothing, I believe we should win this battle in a “conservative/federalist” manner. That means overturning Roe v. Wade, fighting in the statehouses for reasonable restrictions on abortion that majorities will support, and preaching the pro-life Christian message to try to convince women to keep their babies. Not everything immoral needs to be turned over to the federal government to fight.

So, if you consider me an opponent in the pro-life battle, how in the world do you ever expect to win the hearts and minds of people like me or those with slightly more permissive attitudes toward abortion? You need to build a majority, not tear it apart in battles with those you deem less than 100% pure.

In my opinion, Fred has a pragmatic and moral approach. His promise to appoint conservative justices is far more credible than some of the other front runners. And, I agree with him. Even though I oppose abortion, I’m not ready for the legal system to treat women who have an abortion as murderers. Sorry, as much as I want zygotes to be cherished and grow into healthy, happy babies, I’m just not willing to throw a woman into prison for 30 years for taking the morning after pill.

[Sudetenland]

Let me guess, you like the idea of a Caliphate, don't you? (not an actual opinion, only a response in kind to your unwarranted personal attack)

I am a very devout Christian, but I do not substitute that for thinking. Christ admonished us to "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." More importantly, in secular matters, the Constitution was designed to prevent a theocracy. If you don't know that, then you need to go read it and the Bill of Rights.

"The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establshment of Religion or the free exercise thereof,..."

That doesn't mean that you cannot place a Nativity set on public property, that doesn't mean you cannot place the 10 commandments in a courthouse, and it doesn't mean that you cannot have prayer services at public schools. It does mean that you cannot have a theocracy. It does mean that we don't have a state run by the church.

By the way, the more I debate you Rudy haters, the more I feel like I am arguing with a Liberal in Conservative clothing. Your argument are emotional and not rational. You take things intentionally out of context, change the direction and topic of conversation anytime someone boxes you in with logic, and you make gigantic unwarranted leaps of logic to personally attack the individual you are debating ("You just don't like religion, do you"). Each and everyone of those are exactly the same tricks I have encountered in debating a Liberal.

One more thing. The Spanish Inquisition was not as deadly as were the killing fields, but it was every bit (if not more so) as repressive as Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist China, and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge Cambodia. What is life without freedom and liberty, but enslavement. I will serve no master but one, and Him I will meet as I understand Him, not as you would dictate to me.

[shhrubbery!]

A state wouldn’t be able to apply a lesser penalty for “murdering” an embryo than any other person/citizen, would it?

I'm not a lawyer either, but I don't see how any of those proposed Human Life Amendments would "force" states to apply any particular penalty for abortionists (or for the women who get abortions).

My understanding is that states have their own criminal codes, and determine their own penalties.

AFAIK the federal government does not have jurisdiction to interfere with a state's statutes or criminal sentences unless there's a gross violation of a US Constitutional right embodied in a state statute or sentence.

If a Constitutional Amendment were ratified, my guess is this is what would happen:
Most states would pass legislation that would impose penalties on abortionists. States like CA and MA would probably give minimal punishments to them. Sentences for women who had the abortions would probably be suspended entirely.

[CitizenUSA]

shhrubbery wrote: “Most states would pass legislation that would impose penalties on abortionists. States like CA and MA would probably give minimal punishments to them. Sentences for women who had the abortions would probably be suspended entirely.”

Some of the HLAs (according to the Wikipedia article on them) grant personhood to a fertilized egg. If a zygote is declared to be a person with all the rights thereof, how could you have a lesser penalty for killing one than any other person? Wouldn’t that be unequal treatment under the law and a violation of civil rights?

It’s a very complex issue, but I see many problems with making the unborn “persons.” I know it’s easy to declare “life begins at conception,” and it does, but it’s a completely different matter to make it a federal issue. Our founders had an excellent way of dealing with these types of issues...let the states decide.

[CitizenUSA]

Sudetenland, let me first apologize for saying you don’t like religion. That was over the top, and I’m sorry.

As to the rest of your post, theocracies are not more or even as dangerous as Marxists (historical fact). It’s possible theocracies could be more dangerous, but they haven’t yet proven nearly as capable of destroying human life as the Marxists.

The founders didn’t want a national church, like the Church of England. On the other hand, they placed to right of free religious expression in the constitution. We are in agreement on that matter.

I’m not a Rudy hater. I don’t agree with his politics—he’s no conservative—but I don’t hate him.

[Sun]

imo, you like Fred so much that you are trying to excuse whatever he does.

Fred is better than Rudy, in that he has an almost perfect voting record, but Fred needs much more work if we can trust him on the life issue as president. When Fred is wrong, I wish his supporters would say he is wrong, and not just excuse it away.

I don’t want women to go to prison, where did that come from? However, I DO want the abortionist to go to prison.

A zygote IS a human life that should not be destroyed, If you, or anyone you love, were destroyed when they were a zygote, you would not be here.

No woman goes to an abortion clinic to have a zygote abortion performed. So stop it with the zygote, because it appears that you are just trying to kid yourself, or others, imo.

[shhrubbery!]

how could you have a lesser penalty for killing one than any other person? Wouldn’t that be unequal treatment under the law and a violation of civil rights?

States already have different penalties for crimes. Florida and Texas, for example, have the death penalty. New York and Massachusetts don't.

This has not been found unconstitutional by SCOTUS, except briefly some decades ago when SCOTUS struck down all states' death penalty laws.

(SCOTUS saw the error of that ruling and reversed itself.)

It’s a very complex issue, but I see many problems with making the unborn “persons.” I know it’s easy to declare “life begins at conception,” and it does, but it’s a completely different matter to make it a federal issue. Our founders had an excellent way of dealing with these types of issues...let the states decide.

Try substituting these words and you'll see how that's not a good argument:

"It’s Slavery's a very complex issue, but I see many problems with making the unborn slaves “persons.” I know it’s easy to declare “life begins at conception,” "all men are created equal" and it does, they are, but it’s a completely different matter to make it a federal issue. Our founders had an excellent way of dealing with these types of issues...let the states decide."

[Sudetenland]

No harm-no foul. If I truly took personal affront at every snide remark made against me, I would long ago have jumped off a cliff (figuratively speaking as...well...I live in Houston, I'd have to trek a pretty long way to do so and by then I would have talked myself out of it :))and I would be guilty of an obscene amount of hypocrisy.

We do this because we believe in our nation and even the most rational of us can allow our emotions to get the better of us. If any of us was perfect, we Chistians would be reciting their name at the end of our prayers rather than Christ's.

Lastly, you don't do this for as long as I have been blogging and debating Liberals without deriving some degree of pleasure from it. Oh and your last sentence...is the sign of a true-hearted Conservative. I have always maintained that only a Liberal can actually "hate" someone for having a differing view from them.

Ego te absolvo. Now go say three Hail Ann's and have a blessed life.

[napscoordinator]

Some folk are deranged.

Nice. You made my job so easy!!!

[floriduh voter]

This thread is being blogged about elsewhere. They said this was a rabid one. It’s important now because NRTL endorsed Fred subsequently to his awful interview on Meet the Press and what were NRTL thinking???

[floriduh voter]

Yes, he had no problem with Terri being murdered. You see, it was done by a judge and the courts are always right because he's a lawyer and they kiss up to judges, even corrupt ones.

Thompson also represented Aristede of Haiti who necklaced his political opponents and he represented two defendants in the Lockerbee bombing.

Check out Fr. Pavone on You Tube. It's much better than any of Fred's videos.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1920905/posts