SO WE'RE GOING TO SEND HIM A THANKSGIVING DAY GIFT!
Posted on 11/18/2007 5:27:53 PM PST by Josh Painter
When the nation’s largest right to life organization endorsed Fred Thompson last week it sparked some criticism of his pro-life record by his disappointed opponents for the Republican nomination. Thompson produced a 100% pro-life voting record during his eight years in the U.S. Senate, yet some in the pro-life community were dismayed by the National Right to Life endorsement decision and see him as “squishy” on the issue. He believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned, but he has also expressed doubts about whether a Constitutional ban on abortion is practical or politically feasible.
Consistent with his Federalist principles, Thompson prefers to allow the states to apply restrictions on abortion should Roe v. Wade get overturned. It is that viewpoint that has evoked outrage from those who claim Thompson’s approach is actually a pro-abortion position.
-snip-
Given the opportunity, there are perhaps thirty states that would impose restrictions on abortion that could dramatically reduce the numbers of unborn babies killed each year... But the practice would come to an end, or face reasonable restrictions, in many places.
The bottom line is that the Thompson approach would actually save lives while the “we won’t save anybody until we can save everybody” plan will result in hundreds of thousands of abortions each year that COULD be prevented. So, which approach is really MORE pro-life? I suspect that the unborn babies in Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and numerous other states where voters would support restrictions on abortion would support Thompson and his Federalist approach…if they could. The fact that the nation’s largest pro-life organization sees the practical, and life saving, value of an incremental approach to abortion policy should be applauded rather than utilized as a political wedge to divide pro-life voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at southernledger.com ...
There are so many lies that Roe v Wade was based upon, one being that a right to privacy includes a nonexistent right to kill her unborn child, because a woman has a choice to do what she will with her body.
It seems to get lost on these people or they consciously disregard it, that a few choices have already been made by her and the man if she ends up with child, and now there is another life with its own body that she is choosing to destroy.
quite a twist of logic there
I don't think so. To rephase, it would simply be a lie to say that Thompson's position is pro-abortion. Are you saying you disagree with that?
SO WE'RE GOING TO SEND HIM A THANKSGIVING DAY GIFT!
I disagree with what I thought you said. However not with what you really said. Either I misread or your rephrasing helped. Perhaps it was the article that got me confused.
“But, if you add wine to a cup of poison, you will not end up with a cup of wine. It will still be a poison cup.”
Thats very true, but is your analogy? Conservatives keep working for the home run but in the meantime the socialists are getting base hits out the ying yang. So far the score is drastically favoring the socialists.
One sign that you’re in trouble is you they keep doing the same thing day-after-day and are not happy with the outcome; yet you somehow expect it to have a different result the next time you try it.
Very good article and thread. Thanks to all contributors.
life
“LOL, okay. I thought the article had an obtuse way of saying it, but I think the writer’s bottom line was that he thinks it is clear that Fred is pro-life. I think.”
I admit to scanning the article. I usually do that to see if I’m interested enough to read it. My first impression was that it was a hit piece based on twisted logic. But I could be wrong.
Simply not workable ,, besides the less than full human references you can quote relating to punishments are all “old testament” and predate any human knowledge of fetal development..
Why is it not workable? ,, Simple ,, the same clinics that fudge conception dates after a quickie ultrasound ,, either up in weeks to get a higher fee or down in weeks to bypass state enacted bans on late abortions will simply take the practice to the extreme and continue to exist in a world without regulation thanks to their protectors , the democRATS.
More like they lack the necessary votes. When the environment is such that there's even an outside chance at getting 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the state legislatures, then pushing for an HLA makes sense. Until then, it's nothing but a vague promise to something that won't happen.
May I suggest a little vision here.
The objective is to get abortion back to the states. By getting constructionist judges on the SCOTUS and the RIGHT case to bring before them to have it overturned is the objective.
Next.
Once back in the states, a compromise law needs to be written by all 50 states, individualy. Why a compromise? Because it is far easier to modify existing law over time than to go for the whole ball of wax at once.
This is the process for CCW and a few other State laws that have come into practice.
As time goes on, further tightening of the limitations within the law can be enacted.
The HLA amendment will be a long tedious, unsuccessful process until the above occurs. By that time, each of the 'several states' will have law enacted comprable to what the Amendment would read.
This is a war of conscience, not one of just right and wrong. To that end, the fight has to be down to the grassroots level. To do that it starts with the SCOTUS , and ends at the ballot box, where it should be.
That's great, yet how many lives has it saved?
None. Because we keep electing politicians like Thompson who scoff at it.
***************
What an arrogant statement.
Actually, it is those who have refused to compromise the foundational principles who keep forcing the base hits.
Doing the same things we’ve always done would be allowing those who rarely even bother to get up to the plate to continue to lead.
Nah. It’s just factual.
“I stand with Hugo Black and Antonin Scalia. There is no right to privacy ANYWHERE in the Constitution.”
From Wiki; Privacy can be defined as security from the point of view of one stakeholder.
In the case of picking one’s nose, there’s only one stakeholder. With abortion there’s always at least three...
It’s certainly factually arrogant.
“I believe there is a right to privacy but that it does not include the right to kill your child.”
See #57
What do you expect? Because they’re backing a particular candidate who takes the exact same position on abortion that Jerry Ford took, they’re running away from the right position, the Ronald Reagan position, that is the heart and soul of the Republican platform.
The party is regressing, badly.
Not only that, but they’re regressing to a time and a position that was not only unprincipled, it lost elections. Big time.
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.
