Posted on 11/05/2007 8:52:54 AM PST by Reagan Man
Good article. Thanks.
All the Hunterites are beating up on Thompson on pissant’s thread about this. They’re getting about as mouthy as the Ron Paul critters.
I’m with Thompson on this one. I don’t want to ban abortion as much as to make it and thousands of other issues, as they properly are, state issues.
Poor Fred.
I agree with that. Our federal government has never been provided the privilege to legislate abortion issues. Nor have they been provided the thousands of other privileges they exercise with each piece of new unconstitutional legislation.
This is one issue is actually disagree with Fred on, but not for Pro-Life reasons:
The affording of rights of citizenship is reserved for the Federal government. To declare a fetus protected the same as a “born” individual means to afford it the right of citizenship.
I maintain that the abortion issue’s resolution SHOULD NOT BE solely centered around personal freedom or religious convictions, it is the decision resides with CONGRESS.
So much for the idea that Thompson was the answer for true Conservatives.
it would appear you are in the minority...you actually understand how this govenment is supposed to function..
You're saying that Hawkins is correct on opposition to the Human Life Amendment.
Personally, I think that I'll go with Ronald Reagan's support for the Human Life Amendment before I go with something some apologist for Thompson has to say to try to soften Thompson's opposition to the pro-life plank of the Republican Party Platform:
"Well now, we come to a family issue that we must have the courage to confront. Tonight, I call America – a good nation, a moral people – to charitable but realistic consideration of the terrible cost of abortion on demand. To those who say this violates a woman's right to control of her own body – can they deny that now medical evidence confirms the unborn child is a living human being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Let us unite as a nation and protect the unborn with legislation that would stop all federal funding for abortion – and with a human life amendment making, of course, an exception where the unborn child threatens the life of the mother. Our Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the right of taking a life in self-defense." - Ronald Reagan, January 25, 1988
You know pissant, people like this poster, and Paperdoll, really do Hunter a disservice. All I did was respond to Paperdoll nicely and she comes back on me, calling me childish. She also claims we're comparable to Pelosi/Reid. Then there's the above.
If you Hunter fans want honest discourse, you're not getting any help from these two. If anyone's acting like Paulettes, it's them.
Me too. Criminal law is the purview of the States. One of the movements most dangerous to our freedom is the creation of a parallel Federal criminal code.
Congress’ legitimate powers are enumerated in Article I, Section 8. The ratification conferences specifically told the states that the federal gov would have NO OTHER POWERS.
Abortion isn’t listed, so Congress doesn’t have jurisdiction, and neither does the USSC.
Why? Because he’s correct about the issue?
Why complain to me? I battle politely with those who are polite and battle bare knuckles with those who prefer that method. I’m comfortable with either, though I prefer the former.
Not complaining, just pointing out. I sent Paperdoll her notice, didn't I?
But my point is, Hunter fans seem to be getting far more combative than ever. What's wrong? There was a time when we could discourse without it getting out of hand. That time seems past. Not sure why, but I haven't seen it come from our end.
And, as one of the more open and operative Hunter supporters, I just thought you should know one person's observation.
Rights aren’t really decided on a whim, or in Congress. They are individual, and inherent to all humans. We happen to live in a country that acknowledges these individual, inherent rights. But to have them acknowledged, you must be a citizen of this country. To be a citizen, you must first be born into this country.
IMO, all of our individual, inherent rights are derived from our individual, inherent right to own property, fundamentally, our own bodies. We either own our own bodies, or we rent them from the state.
But I will agree that we no longer have an acknowledged, individual, inherent right to own our own bodies. There are countless pieces of legislation that supports that assertion.
So since precedence shows we do not truly own our own bodies, and that we rent them from the state, then the state does have the privilege to legislate any property rights issues, including the property which is your body.
That being the case, there would really be no Constitutional amendment needed. Congress just passes a law that prohibits abortion across the board. Because the federal government does indeed own our bodies. If the federal government doesn’t own our bodies, then there is alot of legislation that needs overturned. But since the federal government does own our own bodies, then it’s up to them.
Please name an individual, inherent right which is not derived from our individual, inherent right to own property, fundamentally, our own bodies.
I know it sucks that anyone would even ever consider an abortion. It really, truly does. But legislating against that cuts at the top of the hierarchy when it comes to our rights. If you have to choose between losing all of your rights, just to put those abortionists in jail, or not, would you really give up all of your rights ?
Because that’s exactly what that does. It pushes us in the opposite direction. It further strengthens the state’s view that they own our bodies. Which they don’t. That’s why America exists. Because our forefathers realized that without property rights, there are no other rights.
Again, it’s sad and disgusting that one would ever choose abortion. It’s horrible that Planned Parenthood is now having record profits. But if you don’t own your body, then you have no gun rights either. Right ? If you can’t own yourself, then you don’t get any rights, as who would they go to ? The rights you would think you have, would be forwarded up the chain to the state.
Not just abortion, but every single political issue that exists today. If you are against hypocrisy, and the Democrat’s notion that whatever sounds good at the time is good, then you should seriously consider if your opinions are aligned properly. It makes sense to start with the self, i.e., that first and foremost we have an individual, inherent right to own our own minds and bodies. Then, other rights can be derived from that. When thinking of any issue, first go back to the top of the hierarchy, and check yourself. This does go against the mentality of “freedom is only freedom for things I agree with”, but that’s not really freedom at all, is it ?
I believe Fred's voting record speaks strongly for his pro-life position. Those who try to discredit him by misrepresenting his statements may be acting out of desperation, but they still shame themselves and their candidate.
People have been complaining about Hunter supporters, Romney supporters, Rudy supporters, Fred supporters, Paul supporters, etc since the primary first started moving. Nature of the beast.
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.