Posted on 11/05/2007 7:42:06 AM PST by pissant
I am no friend of Fred’s. However, I think the best interpretation of the statement that you posted is that Fred is explaining what he used to think back before he saw his daughter’s ultra-sound. Russert had asked him about federalism and about his prior statements from while he was in the senate. Thompson said that there were two issues and that he would deal with them in turn. First, he responded to the federalism question and then he went on to make the statement that you quoted. Immediately afterword he talked about how his view changed after seing his daughters ultra-sound. So, I think in all fairness the statement you quoted was probably him restating what he used to believe about criminalization. That said, if you read the transcript he also makes a statement at the end about criminalization which is a little bit discomforting as well. Anyway, I have attached the relevent section of the transcript and I apologize in advance for the length of this post.
Start of Relevent Transcript Portion
MR. RUSSERT: I went back—we went back to your papers at the University of Tennessee and read through them. This is what you said back in 1994 as a candidate. Here’s the first one: “I’m not willing to support laws that prohibit early-term abortions. I’m not suddenly upon election as a senator going to know when life begins and where that place ought to be exactly. It comes down to whether you believe life begins at conception. I don’t know in my own mind if that is the case so I don’t feel the law ought to impose that standard on other people.”
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: So you yourself don’t know when life begins.
MR. THOMPSON: No. I didn’t know then.
MR. RUSSERT: You know now?
MR. THOMPSON: I, I, I—my head has always been the same place. 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.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, you say that you’re for states having...
MR. THOMPSON: Well, no...
MR. RUSSERT: Let me finish, because this is important. You’re for allowing states to have pro-abortion rights, and you yourself, and I have 10 different statements from you, say that you would not ban abortion, it’s a woman’s right, and you would not ban it in the first trimester.
MR. THOMPSON: No, no. Well, you just said two different things here. You know, it’s a complex issue concerning whether or not you’re going to have a federal law, whether or not you’re going to have a federal constitutional amendment, those kinds of things. Nobody’s proposed a federal law on this. Nobody’s recently proposed a, a federal constitutional amendment. I, I, 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.
But let me finish on my point, and, and, and 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. When I saw—and again, all consistent with what I’ve said. I—people ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, 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 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. I said those things are going to be ultimately won in the hearts and minds of people. I’m probably a pretty good example of that. Although my, my, my head and my legislative record’s always been the same, when I saw that sonogram of my little now four-year-old, it’s, it’s, it’s changed my heart. It’s changed the way I look at things. I was looking at my child when, when, when I, when I saw that. And I knew that, and I felt that. And that’s the way I feel today. And I think life begins at conception. I always—it was abstract to me before. I was a father earlier when I was very young. I was busy. I went about my way. One of the, one of the maybe few advantages you have by getting a little bit older.
MR. RUSSERT: So while you believe that life begins at conception, the taking of a human life?
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, I, I, I, I do.
MR. RUSSERT: You would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?
MR. THOMPSON: I do not think that you can have a, a, a law that would be effective and that would be the right thing to do, as I say, in terms of potentially—you can’t have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that, which potentially would take young, 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.
End of Relevent Transcript Portion
I'd like to see you still try to defend Fred, if the thread topic is true.
Read the thread. Educate yourself.
Thanks, ds ... I certainly hope that’s what Fred was talking about. It’s a confusing (and troubling) statement ... and not made any clearer by Russert’s interruptions.
The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a higher law than the Constitution. It was the same one that was ignored when slavery was allowed in the first place. The founders understood it, but they went against it because it was the only way to obtain their Union and the Civil War was the eventual result. Even today, we continue to ignore the higher law by denying the right to life and condoning the murder of the innocent.
No matter what liberals want to say — denying life to a child is a greater wrong than denying “liberty” (they equated that with abortion) to the mother. At some point, after the birth of the child, the mother will have her freedom back. But once the child is killed, it will never have a chance at liberty or the pursuit of either happiness or property.
As far as the four month rule goes, I don’t believe it was a national law. A state or two may have declared it all right to kill an unborn infant less than four months old. There were no laws prior to the 1800’s because no one even considered ever needing such a thing. After all, why would any normal God fearing mother want to kill her baby?
I agree that the Fourteenth Amendment should apply to the reason for which it was established. It was written specifically for slaves and their children. Unfortunately, it has been construed to apply to anything today. It was written to help those who had been harmed when the Constitution was ratified in error because the original Constitution denied the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness endowed by the Creator to black slaves. Enslaving blacks should never have been a states’ rights issue back then.
Murder is not a states’ rights issue. The murder of an innocent unborn child is particularly heinous. Like slavery, somethings are just wrong everywhere.
I’ve heard Bush say many times that Roe should be overturned and abortions should be stopped. Live and in living color at the March for Life about 5 different times.
I would like to hear more about Thomas. from what I can tell, I would have to chalk him up to your “pro-choice,” colum, until more resukts are in.
YOu just proved my point. That is not precise. Overturning Roe just means that abortion legality would go back to the states.
I'm hoping you're being rhetorical, to show us how much you don't care for Fred, rather than you actually would prefer Hillary?
I mean, what diference is there between the two?
Hillary's a socialist. Few other candidates on either side are as espoused to socialism and enacting it here as she is.
It would be great. I imagine it would just happen the one time, then Timmy would be replaced.
I agree with you. Thompson knew that his position was already confusing people and he should have made it more clear. His statement at the end which seems to echo some of the concerns in the portion you had quoted add to the vagueness even more by making it unclear how much of the argument against criminalization he still believes. One thing that is clear, however, is that he clearly is not a strong pro-life champion.
Negative on that, I just addressed your last post.
For the record Bush supports a Constitutional Amendment with exceptions for incest, rape and the life of the Mother.
“I can assure you I am in good standing with the Romney and Fred supporters”
Not with me. The outrageous personal attacks on Fred Thompson by Duncan Hunter supporters have made you all look like monsters instead of rational human beings. I really don’t give a damn if you say I’m obtuse or vacuous or whatever other cute word you come up with. The truth is, Hunter supporters have destroyed any respect others may have had for them.
Congratulations.
“As far as FDT is concerned on this issue, I greatly admire his consistency on the issue of federalism, I agree with him that life begins at conception, and I agree that this should be a state-level decision - IMHO and his, this isn’t a decision that is properly made by the President or the Fed.gov.”....”However, this is going to hurt him with the absolutists on this issue.”
I agree with Fred on this and I agree with your assessment of how many will react.
We have too many conservatives that say they believe, very much, in the federal nature of our republic and that our federal principals have been usurped; and then, on some issues, instead of seeking to restore the federalism that an action has diminished (the judiciary’s roe v wade decision, for instance) they want to follow the same large central government path to undo it, only by other means.
Fred is consistent, and has also signed onto something (in a similar vein), that I have been advocating for at least four years; and that is instead of trying to “define” marriage in a federal constitutional amendment, we need a federal constitutional amendment that defines HOW marriage is defined - (a)by the states, (b)not by any court, state or federal and (c) only by the people of each state directly or by their legislators.
Social conservatives should trust that on both abortion and marriage, without court dictators, they should succeed, and in those states where they (so cons) cannot succeed, then which is better, getting back to our federalism or a large central government to enforce what they want on the popular will of populations of individual states that don’t agree?
Yes I know, abortion really about when does life begin and is that life a person (my view is at conception and yes), in the eyes of the Constitution. Yet, I still believe that is a national debate that will be best settled as it was before roe-v-wade, by the states; if the states can, somehow, be left without the roe-v-wade dictate and without state court dictates.
hmm I was a fred supporter and now leaning towards Hunter in large part because of this thread. So i guess it works both ways
You can believe that because it's a rational position but there are those who believe that states could decriminalize murder and the constitution would countenance same. Those folks are whistling Dixie with a mouth full of saltines.
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.