Brody File Exclusive: Fred Thompson Abortion Questionnaire

CBN News ^ | June 14, 2007 | David Brody

[AzaleaCity5691]

If the words of the constitution specifically say a state can’t allow abortion, then it can’t........However, no such provision actually exists. It is for this same reason that the claim that abortion is protected is also bunk, nothing in the constitution explicitily says it must be legal in all 50 states.

It’s not a federal issue. If we were a truly unified nation with a true national culture, maybe the national government would have the right to interfere, however, we are a country of about 10 cultural nations and therefore, you really can’t come up with a comprehensive national policy based on a cultural value.

Abortion was a matter entirely in the state’s discretion before 1973, and thats where it belongs

[Dan Evans]

Children are entitled to as much liberty as they can responsibly exercise. The unborn child has a right to liberty within the confines of her mother’s womb. The born child has a right to liberty within the confines of her home. (I would argue that compulsory attendance laws are a violation of the child’s right to liberty; only the parent has the authority to decide to infringe the child’s liberty in this way.) Since the right to life trumps the right to liberty, the parent may not use HER liberty to deprive her child of life. Ever. We do recognize that children have a special status. They have the right to the care of their parents. And the parents have a right to use reasonable discipline in pursuit of raising the child. But in no case does this extend to depriving the child of life itself, nor even to committing grave bodily harm to a child.

You got all of that from the Constitution? Let's back up a bit. I am arguing the case that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to ban abortion. Also I am saying that the Constitution does not restrict the individual, that's what state law is for. From what you wrote, maybe you agree:

only the parent has the authority to decide to infringe the child’s liberty in this way

In other words, the Constitution does not restrain the parent. More generally the Constitution does not and should not apply to the individual. Individuals are allowed to do all kinds of things that the Constitution prohibits the Congress and the states from doing. We are allowed to discriminate against people in our personal affairs, we can search our child's room or restrict his liberty without due process. State law, not the Constitution, prohibits child abuse, abortion and murder and other crimes against people.

When the Federal Government passed a law against murder or assault it only applied to federal officials. When they tried to pass a law against rape they clumsily tried to justify it by saying that rape interfered with interstate commerce.

But if you start inventing rights and responsibilities out of thin air and you give the Congress and Federal regulators the authority to enforce vague principles we will have unrestrained tyranny. They will tell women whether they can bottle feed or breast feed. They will dictate what the mother can eat or drink. They will tell you what you can teach your kid. It will all be for the CHILDREN.

The rationale for the evil Roe decision is the same type of loose, liberal reasoning that I am reading here on this thread -- people making up long-winded "rights" out of one word in the preamble.

Right now we have mothers killing their babies. If you want a government (like China) that kills babies continue to shred the Constitution.

[Dan Evans]

Yes, they do, provided it’s contraception. Why” Because contraception doesn’t kill anybody.

But contraception does threaten posterity. And the word posterity in the preamble was the rationale for a federal abortion prohibition.

Again, you are forgetting that the mother and her child are a dyad. If you want to harm her child, you must first harm her. The “liberty” you are speaking of is the “liberty” to consent to medical rape, because that’s what it is. It is the deep invasion of a mother’s body for the purpose of harming both her and her child. If you truly understand what abortion is, you will understand why your argument here makes no sense. The mere fact a lot of people use this argument doesn’t make it any less nonsensical.

The Constitution says nothing about dyads or rape. In fact, in some states rape is legal when it is committed by a married man against his wife. You are using the same liberal reasoning as the justices who decide roe.

I would suggest that our republic will be much better off if you fight this battle at the state level -- after Roe is overturned.

[Dan Evans]

What you and many other people seem not to understand is that the erosion of the rights you mentioned was a CONSEQUENCE of Roe.

Roe and the erosion of rights was a consequence of liberalism in Congress and the courts -- specifically, a liberal interpretation of the Constitution as opposed to a strict constructionist view.

But the Founders clearly showed that our Constitution was only sufficient to govern a virtuous people.

That's because the Constitution doesn't really govern, it set limits on the authority of government. If you have enough evil in a state, that state is lost. But the others can survive. But if the federal government becomes corrupt, and if the federal government is all-powerful, everything is lost.

There is no virtue in prohibiting people from seeking to protect the unborn and their mothers by whatever means possible.

If the means include trashing the 10th amendment, then you have done nothing virtuous. You will have cut down the last law that protects us from the devil. We can always recover from the deaths of millions but once we give absolute authority to an overbearing government, we lose everything forever because they will never return that power to the states.

[Dan Evans]

Yes, states have a right to define statutory rights. But they have a duty to enforce unalienable rights.

That may be true, but that does not give the Federal Government the authority to ban abortion. There are all kinds of heinous crimes from murder to rape that violate no federal law. That's because the Federal Government does not have that authority.

There’s no unalienable right for a person to be protected against a search of his portion of the house by another family member.

Well in fact, it does not violate the Constitution for ANY individual who is not a state agent to search your house. It could violate half a dozen local laws, but not the Constitution.