Here's why wording such as that is pushing the limits of rational. Until science can save both the mother and the alive unborn child with a pregnancy termination procedure, there will always be the rare situation when the life of each compete for imminence. Codifying with a Constitutional Amendment the approved killing of one alive citizen without reaching the established right to execute based upon criminal conviction immediately establishes an untenable law which contradicts our DofI and current first ten amendments to the Constitution. IMHO, so long as the deabte over pregnancy termination is not based in the well established principle of self defense, a rational balance based in our existing principles can not be reached to authorize the purposeful killing of an alive yet unborn innocent fellow human being.
Though not directly, the exceptions for rape and incest actually address the notion of self defense, as in pregnancy brings an increased mortality risk and the one impregnated under circumstances of rape or minor child incest must be viewed from the standpoint of a right to defend the innocent one upon whom criminal act has been perpetrated. A rational approach can only be achieved when we recognize the underlying principle which makes pregnancy termination a reasonable option for protecting life of the one unlawfully forced to give life support. THEN we may apply that principle to even embryo-aged innocent human beings and when science achieves the ability to save even an implanted embryo we will have a natural flow to apply defense of the embryo-aged beings as well as the older life of the woman.
To attack Fred based upon not being 100% in defense of the unborn when no rational balance is yet achievable is nonsense. If we really want to get somewhere in the pro-life impasse, we will alter the debate to address the notion of human lives having a right to self defense where the individual life is in peril. Current law and perspective for pro-life does not establish that foundation and we see it cannot be transferred to protecting embryo-aged humans.
In my view, a whole new right to privacy was created by the leftist judiciary to justify their creating new law outside the mechanism of legislation. It was a gross abuse of power, IMHO - and should the court ever overturn those decisions, and I pray it will, it'll send contraception, abortion and homosexual conduct back to legislature(s) where they belong.
Viewed as a criminal matter (self defense) abortion would be appropriate for the States' legislature as you say. Viewed as a right, it seems to me that Congress would have to take it up as a Constitutional Amendment.
Either way would be better than what we have.
First: I plan on voting for Fred Thompson, not just in the general against the Hildabeast but probably in the primary instead of Duncan Hunter, especially if the polls continue to go up for Fred and stay low for Duncan.
And to show what I hope is received as “good faith” I want to correct a technical, but important, mistake I made in my post. I said “Duncan Hunter & Tom Tancredo support a Human Life Amendment…” Actually Duncan Hunter introduced the Right to Life Act*, which according to the text “would provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception.” So it’s legislation, not an Amendment to the US Constitution. Here is one sentence from Hunter’s Act that clearly illustrates that he is FULLY “100% Pro-Life” -- “I firmly believe that life begins at conception and that the preborn child deserves all the rights and protections afforded an American citizen.” To be clear, that is what I am hoping Fred Thompson will go on the record to say, or words to that effect.
Mr. Silverback, you said: “Some people just believe that the HLA is a futile effort. I'm not one of them”
I am.
I would wholeheartedly welcome the enactment of a Human Life Amendment, but currently under the circumstances an HLA is sadly a futile effort and a complete waste of time. Which is quite probably why Duncan Hunter is introducing the Right to Life Act and not an Amendment, and quite possibly, hopefully, why Fred Thompson says he does not support a Human Life Amendment.
But the crux of my post remains: Is Fred Thompson 100% Pro-Life to the extent that Duncan Hunter is? Does he believe what Congressman Hunter is on record saying: “I firmly believe that life begins at conception and that the preborn child deserves all the rights and protections afforded an American citizen.” As President will Fred Thompson do something beyond appointing federal judges, something like publicly supporting Duncan Hunter type legislation? That is why in my previous post I wrote: I would like him to explain his positions in a more complete way. I’m guessing he will once he formally enters.
We have a right, and even an obligation to ask these questions of those running for office, especially POTUS.
Well put. - Everyone should agree on the constitutional principle that both a pregnant woman and "an alive yet unborn innocent fellow human being" have the right to self defense.
Though not directly, the exceptions for rape and incest actually address the notion of self defense, as in pregnancy brings an increased mortality risk and the one impregnated under circumstances of rape or minor child incest must be viewed from the standpoint of a right to defend the innocent one upon whom criminal act has been perpetrated.
A rational approach can only be achieved when we recognize the underlying principle which makes pregnancy termination a reasonable option for protecting life of the one unlawfully forced to give life support.
Yep, the pregnant woman cannot be "- unlawfully forced to give life support -". Only with due process of law can she be so forced.
THEN we may apply that principle to even embryo-aged innocent human beings and when science achieves the ability to save even an implanted embryo we will have a natural flow to apply defense of the embryo-aged beings as well as the older life of the woman.
To attack Fred based upon not being 100% in defense of the unborn when no rational balance is yet achievable is nonsense.
If we really want to get somewhere in the pro-life impasse, we will alter the debate to address the notion of human lives having a right to self defense where the individual life is in peril.
Current law and perspective for pro-life does not establish that foundation and we see it cannot be transferred to protecting embryo-aged humans.
Exactly. It is constitutionally and medically impossible [at this time] to protect the self defense rights of both a pregnant woman and "an alive yet unborn innocent fellow human". - As you say:
"- Until science can save both the mother and the alive unborn child with a pregnancy termination procedure, there will always be the rare situation when the life of each compete for imminence. -"
In effect, demanding that Fred Thompson [at this point in time] support "100 percent" total bans on abortion is playing into the political rhetoric of our opponents. That position on this issue makes a candidate unelectable.