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

To: Reagan Man
Fred Thompson`s position has always been consistent and in line with his support for federalism.

Oh...well that explains why he voted FOR a federal law banning Partial Birth Abortion and now is against a federal amendment which would affect the legality of abortion - because he is "consistent" in his federalism stance.

Hmmm...I wonder where Thompson would have stood on the issue of slavery. Should that be decided on a state-by-state basis? If it is OK for some states to allow the slaughter of one class of human life (those that have yet to be born) then it would stand to reason that it would also be OK for them to allow the enslavement of one class of human life too. Right?

Let's stretch that logic to extremes, shall we? Under your definition of "federalism" (and Thompson's and Hawkins') then it would be OK, on a state-by-state basis, for those unwanted human lives to instead of being aborted, to be enslaved after they are born. You've defined a class of human life to not be protected by laws protecting life, freedom, etc. Why not pay the mothers for their unwanted children and then enslave the children after they are born - on a state-by-state basis, of course? Would that be OK with you, Thompson, and Hawkins to allow to be implemented state-by-state?

29 posted on 11/05/2007 10:30:01 AM PST by Spiff (<------ Click here for updated polling results. Go Mitt! www.mittromney.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: Spiff
Oh...well that explains why he voted FOR a federal law banning Partial Birth Abortion and now is against a federal amendment which would affect the legality of abortion - because he is "consistent" in his federalism stance.

Not everybody is Ron "Just Say No" Paul -- pragmatism knowing that the current system has the federal government already involved in abortion, and therefore taking action to put a reasonable restriction on it does not conflict with wanting to get the federal government out of regulating abortion in the first place.

In the Roe v. Wade world, the federal government essentially has total control over abortion law. While that is true, one can work both to do what is best under that model as well as change the model without being inconsistent or a hypocrite.

Or, one can sign promises to Planned Parenthood supporting the substance of Roe v. Wade and supporting taxpayer funding of abortions.

I'm voting for the former, not the latter.

34 posted on 11/05/2007 10:43:41 AM PST by kevkrom (*** THIS SPACE FOR RENT ***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: Spiff

Slavery could have been settled by Congress without an amendment - that fact is why the Presidential election was so controversial in 1860.


70 posted on 11/06/2007 9:20:49 PM PST by hocndoc (http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | 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