Posted on 11/04/2007 1:38:41 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
“i don’t think a baby deserves to die simply by being in the wrong state at the wrong time. Now if I don’t like what my state does I can either vote the bums out or move if I don’t get my way. but a baby can’t make that choice and his rights must be protected by all states.”
I agree!!
That’s what I meant.
And I still don’t think the government should do it.
But that’s just me. It’s a very personal path to walk to get to that conclusion.
Quite the personal crap. Just because someone does not share your warped view of who Fred is, isn't an excuse for your behavior.
Given a few of the responses on this thread some will think that is okay.
What a revealing issue.
Human life says “NO” to Thompson.
Oh really? Ted Kennedy supports overturning Roe v. Wade?
Ridiculous comment to make.
It was a parody response to a known abusive Fredhead.
What is wrong with you people?
I respectfully disagree. I believe that the states should execute all convicted murderers.
Roe v. Wade (abortion) is a mistake made by the Supreme Court with NOTHING in the Constitution to back it up -- and it is for the Supreme Court to rectify; as it did the Dred Scott case, theand Plesse case, and the many other bad boo-soos they have made. They are not within the enumerated powers granted to the legistlative branch by the Sonstitution. Neither is the marriage debacle -- and DEFINITELY NOT a candidate's church attendance or affiliation. The latter most definitely being expressly forbidden by the Constitution itself.
Such matters, not being espressly granted to Congress, were reserved for the States and the People.
Well, it sure as hell won’t coalesce around Julieannie or Huckabee or even Thompson (the latter precisely because of his nuanced views as obfuscated here). So, I guess since you know so much about Mittphobia, between the two of us we’re saying that all is lost, the sky is falling, the Pubbies are doomed because uncoalesceable.
Could be true. Then again, . . .
Happy Freditating.
“Turns out Fred’s political position on abortion is the same as Rudy’s.”
You are either under-read or a damned liar, which is it please?
The proper term for the “big government Conservative, or “anti-Federalist”) is “theocrat.” At least as dangerous as a Marxist.
MindBender26 wrote: “Women routinely had Menstrual Extractions or a D & C because of “residue” from an “incomplete period,” “idiopatahic abdominal pain” or other such “problems”.”
I’m definitely opposed to abortion and would always try to save the unborn, but there are many areas where the issue isn’t so black and white. For example, what if the mother’s life is threatened, rape or incest, or the morning after pill? Some FReepers would apparently like to make it a federal crime to terminate a fertilized egg, aka new life, for any reason at any time. Apparently they see no difference between a woman terminating a 2nd or 3rd trimester pregnancy because it’s inconvenient and a woman with serious health issues who is agonizing over having to terminate a problem pregnancy.
The premise that says abortion is wrong because it murders an innocent human being is the same premise that should deny ANY government, just as any individual, authority to take innocent life.
If people want to make a choice to have an abortion that Fred disagrees with, "that’s what freedom is all about."
Hooray for diversity. Down with intolerance.
So would a constitutional amendment—in the ratification process it’s pretty darn federalist. Indeed, as I recall, the idea of amending the Constitution is, gasp, written into the Constitution in a remarkably federalist way.
Saying that a constitutional amendment is anti-federalist is silly. It would be anti-federalist if Congress alone could amend, but the Founders were just a tad smarter than that. They put that ratification business in there.
So Fred’s objection to a constitutional amendment is specious and empty-headed. All he has to do is say, “Go for it. If we can get an amendment ratified—very unlikely—it’d be one federalist way to get the job done. If we can get the judiciary to overturn R v W, it’s a less federalist way to do it but the only reason it has to be done at all is that anti-federalist stupidity called R v W.” It wouldn’t have hurt his federalism one iota. But he’s banking on people not stopping to think about the federalisticality of the ratification process of a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment. He’s counting on federalists to be stooooooopid. Which shows how smart he is.
But then, again, perhaps those boobs who wrote that Constitution didn’t know what they were doing when the put the ratification process in. Some of them weren’t good enough to play a lawyer on television. What a bunch of doofuses!
Quite interesting that Thompson has come out against the Pro-Life plank in the Republican platform...I wonder how the evangelicals will react in the South?
I’d say that they are more dangerous as they are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
This is exactly the same as Mitt Romney saying he’s always been against abortion, he just supports a woman’s right to choose.
FOTFL!
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.