Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ejonesie22

You can set up the straw men all you like and wait for as long as you like. I’m not falling for it. The issue here is why Fred doesn’t support a Constitutional Amendment that will protect the unborn. His solution is to “give it back to the states”. That will make some of us feel really good in a few states,but it will have little effect on the number of the unborn murdered.

I think I posted earlier precisely my thoughts on this issue. You do what you can, when you can as hard as you can. If going to the states is what we can get, then so be it. I’m for it. But why not support a constitutional amendment as well? Why throw away an option, relinquish a weapon in the fight? Who is the real purist here? There is nothing unconstitutional about a constitutional amendment is there? Is Fred such a “states rights” purist that he will reject an alternative? It doesn’t have to be either/or, it can be both. The efforts to spin this have been nothing short of admirable, but the truth remains, you’re wrong, Fred’s wrong.


384 posted on 11/05/2007 11:21:44 AM PST by WildcatClan (DUNCAN HUNTER- The only choice for true conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies ]


To: WildcatClan
So you do favor both paths?

Good, but be prepared for the frontal assault to fail.

We don’t need preaching, we need persuasion right now, and a bit of tactics....

387 posted on 11/05/2007 11:26:46 AM PST by ejonesie22 (Real voters in real voting booths will elect FDT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies ]

To: WildcatClan
In all fairness to Fred, even Jim Bopp, the guy who wrote the HLA which is in the GOP platform, does not believe the HLA would pass right now.

Even Bopp says the drive to end abortion is seen as a two-step process: First, overturn Roe v. Wade, which would return abortion law to the states; and second, create consensus for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion.

However, one cannot deny that it certainly would be preferable for the pro-life movement to elect a president who agrees to work towards passing an amendment in the first place -- even if it is seemingly futile at present. Fred's statements imply that he will not use his presidential position to further that cause. Romney will. Hunter will.

In fact, Fred has a laissez faire attitude regarding social issues in general as evidenced by his "so be it" statement regarding gay marriage as well. We don't have to settle for indifference when we can have resolve to lead the cause.

Having said that, even prominent pro-life leaders like Jim Bopp realize that the pro-life community should be sophisticated and savvy enough to understand how a pro-life politician has to advocate for the possible, and must not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

396 posted on 11/05/2007 11:44:26 AM PST by redgirlinabluestate (Common sense conservatives unite 4 Mitt 2 defeat Rudy and then Hillary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson