Posted on 11/18/2007 12:10:42 PM PST by dano1
I disagree with Huckabee. Roe v. Wade should never have made it to the Supreme Court because it belonged at the state level. We cannot have it both ways. (except maybe in the case of partial birth abortion, which is horrendous)
“For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can’t simply have 50 different versions of what’s right,”
I agree that abortion is morally wrong, but there’s a lot of jurisdictions in the USA that do not agree. Federalism works. I like Fred Thompson, and don’t like Mike Huckabee. But if Mike is the nominee of the party, he’s still better than any Democrat!
However, I think abortion is a constitutional issue. It's depriving the unborn of life without due process, breaking Constitutional Law stated in the 5th Amendment. Any state allowing abortion would be breaking the 14th Amendment.
“I have lived in Tennessee all of Freds political life, and not once have I ever known him to lead an abortion fight in this state”
So what? Does that make Fred pro abortion?
They aren’t too big on taking orders from Washington.
Shaking up the Republican primary abortion-style
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1927483/posts
Explains why Fred got the National Right To Life Committee endorsement.
He leaves out what day he will sign amnesty.
Mike Huckabee:
“Roe v. Wade is based on a real stretch of Constitutional application--that somehow there is a greater privacy issue in the abortion concern--than there is a human life issue--and that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision. So, I've never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous.”
They aren’t too big on murdering the unborn either.
If you think keeping abortion within the sole purview of the Feds(Dems) is going to result in an across the board ban; then you're delusional.
Withing the present framework you are never going to get a federal ban. There's an alternate definition for a word that goes something like this: 'doing the same thing and expecting different results.' The word: Insanity.
I suppose it is desirable to you to have a federal ban, but the question is; would you prefer to go for a federal ban, that you're never likely to get, or go with a 25~50% ban on the state level and work from there?
We've been trying for about 30 years now to ban it, and we're not making much headway.
Time to change tactics.
“Huckabee Says Abortion Not for States”
Huckleberry don’t need to sell me on his views on abortion. He does have work to do on illegal aliens/border issues and taxes.
The right to life for every person is the preeminent unalienable right. Which lesser rights do you now want the states to decide? Slavery? The RTKBA? Free speech? Assembly? What?
I agree that it should be a state’s rights issue, and that if it were, most states would prohibit abortion in all (or most) cases. But, just as a point of fact, it should be noted that in the years prior to Roe, several states had repealed/”reformed” their abortion laws, so that it was not quite “universally” illegal. Overwhelmingly illegal, yes, but not quite universal.
So, I guess there might be some merit to the argument that, if we want to protect life in all cases, in all areas of the country, a constitutional amendment may be the way to do it. Still, I think we should work on undoing the damage of Roe first, then see what still needs doing after the dust settles.
If that is true, why are the homosexual marriages from Massachusetts not recognized in Alabama? They aren't, are they?
Oh goody! President Huck wants moral laws nationwide. Now will this come before or after his drive to ban smoking nationwide? Hmmmm, what did those that argued for the Constitution say...I believe it's somewhere...oh yes...
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.--Federalist 45
Now of course a good 'conservative' (i.e. big government Republican) will post the Preamble as if that's some sort of argument against what Mr. Madison, the father of the Constitution, has stated. And one would think as Mr. Madison helped write the Preamble, Mr. Madison knew what he was talking about.
I'm as pro-life as any conservative but this is an issue for the separate and sovereign states.
Actually, that's the one thing our "leaders" HAVE NOT been trying to do.
Why? Abortion is almost gone in most places in the deep south.
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.