On abortion, Fred is more of an appeaser that a leader.
Mike is RIGHT on this issue.
It’s hard to believe that making SLAVERY illegal is okay but to pretend that murdering a small human being should continue, haphazardly at the “state” level. It makes NO SENSE whatsoever. Our founders would NEVER, EVER have approved of abortion nor would they want that understood to be a "right" to murder a small human being.
I think you answered my question. Your position has no basis in logic. Fred is right on this. Huckabee is wrong.
Written historical records date abortions back to ancient Egypt. Legal & illegal abortions have existed in all societies. The founding fathers were well read enough to know this and yet they left this (as with murder) up to the states. This is how it was before Roe v. Wade. To go further requires a Constitutional Amendment - which today could not pass the 3/4 of the states. Period & end of story.
We need to get rid of the very flawed Roe v. Wade first and foremost. A constitutional amendment may be possible down the road, but anyone who thinks a constitutional amendment has a chance at this stage is hard to take seriously.
People have been trying to pass a pro-life amendment to the Constitution of 35 years and it has gotten absolutely nowhere. Overturning Roe V. Wade could be as immediate as the next Supreme Court justice to drop dead, then the only thing holding up the process would be activist judges.
So go tilt at windmills all you want while people with solutions that work do the hard work.
“Our founders would NEVER, EVER have approved of abortion nor would they want that understood to be a “right” to murder a small human being.”
What makes you so certain? They couldn’t agree about what to do on slavery, which was a big topic for many decades, both pre-Constitution, post-Constitution, in Britain and elsewhere.
BTW good luck with a Constitutional Amendment;
Article. V. - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
I seriously doubt 3/4 of the states would vote to explicitly make abortions illegal.
So the Thompson plan to overturn Roe v. Wade is the more rational, practical, probable approach. That is if results is the goal.
OTH Making a big play for a Constitutional Amendment may make a bigger splash for awhile, for publicity, until it fails miserably to pass-hence no results.
There are a lot more than 1/4 of the states which are liberal to moderate enough, to not completely outlaw abortions.