Posted on 11/05/2007 7:42:06 AM PST by pissant
Then expalin his votes over the years.
Didn’t think so...
You really enjoy being obnoxious, don't you. Frankly, it doesn't get me mad; it only makes me laugh because it defines you as the child, not me.
That is what Free Republic is all about. Expressing one’s point of view, hopefully in a mature manner. :)
Nothing mature about being snidely obnoxious (as you've shown yourself to be). If you want mature comment from others, try providing it yourself instead of being snide. Oh, and I haven't seen your post to JimRob yet telling him he's joined the Pelosi/Reid contigent of FR. I'm waiting...
In the long run I think abandoning the fight for a pro-life Amendment is not going to help us because it will cut the leggs out from under our argument that abortion should be banned on a state level. Basically, if we abandon the federal argument we are conceding that an unborn child is not a person. If an unborn child is not a person then we will have a hard time arguing that abortions be banned at a state level. However, while I disagree with you on the best way to end abortion, I appreciate your honesty and the dedication that you obviously have to the pro-life cause.
It should be a STATE issue. Not Federal. Thats what he is saying. And he is RIGHT.
I watched MTP and Fred did say that he doesn’t “want to criminalize young girls who get abortions”. That is double speak for, “I want to keep abortion legal”.Not necessarily. He didn't say anything about not criminalizing the ones who perform abortions.
I don’t disagree with you, and I thought, until I read this, that I didn’t disagree with Fred. I was expecting another word-twisting hit job by the writer or interviewer.
I agree that Roe v. Wade should be reversed. It was abysmal constitutional law, because it pretends that there was something in the constitution, a “woman’s right to abortion” that simply is not there.
I also agree that it may not be wise to push for a constitutional amendment. We tried that earlier, and it was counterproductive.
BUT. I am disturbed by what he says about his reservations about criminalizing abortion at the state level, or even setting age limits. Perhaps I misunderstand him. Certainly the interviewer is trying to back him into a corner.
But read what he says. Some of it is very disturbing. He seems to say that abortion should not be criminalized. Which is as good as saying that women and doctors should be free to perform abortions if they choose to. Not good. Not good at all. If he doesn’t correct this impression, HE IS TOAST.
Much ado about nothing, since POTUS has zero constitutional role in constitutional amendment. None.
If the votes were someday there for the HLA, it could be passed even with a reanimated Margaret Sanger as President.
Oh, the insufferable hugh manatee of it all! Glad you're so mad. You just made my day. Thanks!
As stated. Abortion as defined by the Constitution is performed before the end of the first tri-mester. Partial Birth Abortion is performed AFTER that period. Not to mention, it’s cruel, grotesque, and inhuman.
This is a willful distortion of what he said. Read the transcript, and form an informed opinion.
Could be his lie fit his personal agenda.
Mulefritters.
What does pro-life mean then? If you vote for someone who’s pro-choice, how can you be pro-life? Because you wouldn’t personally have or recommend an abortion? If someone is against criminalizing it, he’s for it being legal. You’re voting for someone who’s for keeping it legal. You’re pro-choice.
From what he said in the article, it sounded like he’s against it being illegal on a state level too.
“People ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, it goes back to the states,” said Thompson. “Somebody comes up with a bill, and they say we’re going to outlaw this, that, or the other. And my response was, I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician. And that’s what you’re talking about. It’s not a sense of the Senate. You’re talking about potential criminal law.”
That's the correct way to do it.
If a STATE decides to allow it, that is the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
For those who are "pro-life", you may be disappointed in such a circumstance when the vote doesn't go in your favor (blue states). HOWEVER, you're subject to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution just like everyone else, and if the MAJORITY in your State vote FOR legalized abortion, you're stuck with it.
For the die-hards, who think the Constitution says "life" begins at the moment of conception, absent a USSC ruling that agrees, then you are bound by the State decision by the People.
FRed has it right.
If in fact the "majority" is offended by the position, they can vote against him. That does not mean he is wrong on the issue of States' Rights; it only means that the MAJORITY don't agree because they are mis-informed, or, as occurs on this thread, grasping at straws to promote their own candidate choice.
I KNOW FRed is a Conservative, Christian, human FIRST.
It’s his politics that allow him to protect those virtues.
But the following quote from the interview sure makes it sound as though he not only wants the decision at the state level, but he personally is opposed to making abortion illegal.
Maybe I'm missing the context or something, or perhaps he misspoke ... but here it is:
People ask me, hypothetically, “Okay, it goes back to the states. Somebody comes up with a bill, and they say, ‘We’re going to outlaw this, that or the other.’” And my response was, I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls, and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors, and perhaps their family physician. And that’s what you’re talking about. It’s not a ‘sense of the Senate.’ You’re talking about a potential criminal law. I said, those things are going to be won in the hearts and minds of people.
So you think that anything could be accomplished by IMPRISONING a 17 year old girl for having an abortion?
You’re nuts. Although you’re a fan of a great man according to your FR handle...you’re still nuts.
So, your argument then is that the constitution gives the right to the federal government to protect the lives of persons but that it should be interpreted consistant with the quickening theory and thus persons include 3rd but not 1st or 2nd trimester unborn children. If this is the case, why does Thompson oppose a constitutional amendment clarifying the definition of person. Surely defining person to include unborn children in the 1st and 2nd trimester as well would not be a dramatic expansion of federal power and you have already conceded that Congress already has power to regulate under the 14th Amendment.
Shhh...don’t tell them that. It ruins their insane argument.
This is not a “states-rights” issue.
It’s a true “human rights” issue.
Fred should have worked this from the bottom up:
“I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned.”
“I oppose abortion and would hope every state in the Union would outlaw it.
I would not want states to criminalize abortion for minors, as is the case for most crimes. They would have probation, required counseling and education. and assist in the prosecution of their enablers. However, anyone assisting the minor should face prosecution.”
“Anyone running an illegal abortion clinic should be prosecuted as a felon, in my opinion.”
If someone performs an abortion where it is illegal, they should be prosecuted.”
“Adult women who use abortion as birth control should be prosecuted.”
There, Fred, it’s not that hard to have reasonable opinions about abortion.
Hunter Duncan really needs to find himself a better class of supporter.
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.