Posted on 11/08/2007 12:00:05 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
WASHINGTON -- Fred Thompson was well into a prolonged dialogue about abortion with interviewer Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday when he said something stunning for social conservatives: "I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors." He then went further: "You can't have a (federal) law" that "would take young, young girls ... and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail."
Those comments sent e-mails flying across the country reflecting astonishment and rage by pro-life Republicans who had turned to Thompson as their best presidential bet for 2008. No anti-abortion legislation ever has proposed criminal penalties against women having abortions, much less their parents. Jailing women is a spurious issue raised by abortion rights activists. What Thompson said could be expected from NARAL.
Thompson's comments revealed astounding lack of sensitivity about the abortion issue. He surely anticipated that Russert would cite Thompson's record favoring state's rights on abortion. Whether the candidate just blurted out what he said or planned it, it reflects failure to realize how much his chances for the presidential nomination depend on social conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
And, hundreds should be! That is if one believes that abortion is the taking of a human life, which you obviously don't.
Thompson's arguments make perfect sense to people like you and others that favor keeping abortion legal. But, that doesn't make the comments any more abhorrent to pro-lifers, a group he needed to rally for him to win the nomination.
That would be 1919...And, what idiotic analogy. There is no comparison between drinking alcohol and taking the life of an innocent human being.
There is also no comparison between the level of support for banning abortion for convenience sake and for banning alcohol. The majority do and have for most of the history of the nation supported banning abortion for convenience sake. Up to 30 states would ban abortion in all but rare circumstances if given the opportunity.
Wrong. The battle can't be won until Roe is overturned. If it was, more than half the states would ban abortion for convenience sake and most others would much more severely restrict it.
And, yes, the law deters. The more the punishment, the greater the deterrent.
I agree with you. The personhood of the unborn child needs to be recognized, and the child would then be protected under the Preamble, 5th, and 14th Amendments to our Constitution. The object of our government is to secure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all persons. It would make no sense if some states are securing that right under certain circumstances and others are not. The unborn child still wouldn’t be recognized as a person with the right to life nationwide. It would be the equivalent of some states declaring black people persons worthy of life and other states declaring them “big blobs of tissue” able to be killed.
You’re right.
Some people seem bewildered by the concept, though.
I think personhood is key to undoing Roe. Others find very legalistic reasons to avoid this approach.
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.