Posted on 06/18/2007 2:19:35 PM PDT by wagglebee
And your point is, what? That they were right? I hope not.
The lack of reading comprehension on the bench only heightens the need to elect persons who hold the correct view: that the Constitution protects the right to life and no state can infringe upon that.
LOL
LMFAO!
Why are you coming to Rudy’s defense if you don’t support him then?
I believed GHWB a hell of a lot more than I will EVER believe Roody and look how "Read my lips, no new taxes" turned out.
“The Constitution already protects life.”
I’m afraid it doesn’t.
If it did, all murders would be federal crimes. Instead, as you’ll note, most murders are handled at the state level. There are a few exceptions, a few circumstances in which a murder can be tried in the federal courts, but not many.
In fact, if the US Constitution “protected life” in the blanket way you suggest, it would cause quite a few problematic issues, such as how can the country assemble an army or fight a war.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m as pro-life as they come. But the Constitution doesn’t have the mechanism to outlaw it in the way you wish.
Roe really does need to be overturned, and the states allowed to ban it.
Qwinn
I have no respect for a gun-grabbing, cross-dressing, pro-homosexual rights authoritarian who has no respect for conservatism and have rode on the ashes of 9/11 for a run at the WH.
“This is a position the pro-life movement should embrace instead of trying to go for a hail mary.”
I am pro-life and I I believe that your approach is the only realistic one.
I'm just saying a Constitutional amendment will be difficult to pass and it's better to reverse the decision and let the states ban it.
NO, Roody's REAL GOAL was to make sure that abortionists could kill as many babies as possible and stick the taxpayers with the bill.
Actually, I’ll take that partially back. The Constitution -may- have a way to handle it, through the 14th and Equal Protection. You’d basically have to get the unborn to be designated as a protected class (or at least recognized as human), and then argue that they are treated in an unfair or unequal manner to other groups and protected classes. That might work. I still prefer overturning Roe first tho.
Qwinn
“A Constitutional ban on abortion isn’t feasible right now. You think California or New York Senators are going to support it? I have no problem with abortion returning to the states as it was before the 1973 ruling. This is a position the pro-life movement should embrace instead of trying to go for a hail mary.”
As much as most Conservatives want to end it now...chances are it will take steps to dismantle. Although I agree...an all or nothing deal will be the least practical way to move forward on this. It’s unfortunate, but we have to assume each battle one by one.
“The longer this goes on, the better Ron Paul looks.”
Little early in the day to be drinking isn’t it?
That’s a very interesting idea. One that definitely bears further thought.
Well, if you have been reading my posts carefully you'll see that, instead of defending Rudy, in general, I would like to insert accuracy into this emotional and sometimes irrational condemnation of any candidate who does not have "his mind right" regarding abortion. For example, I pointed out Rudy's latest position paper, and the response was essentially, "bullshit!" Now, if that is what you believe, then that's your right. But, it is a fact that Rudy's latest statement (and I've already discussed Duncan Hunter in the regard) is a rather strong statement supporting alternatives to abortion and is something that only he and Hunter have done on the campaign trail. Now, that's a fact, Jack--if you chose not believe Rudy's heart on the matter, that's fair. Only a few here have come right out and said they simply disbelieve Rudy, e.g., Rudy's a liar. But many have tried to dispute this one fact: 'Only Rudy and Hunter have made public statements of the position of action against abortion.'
I, myself, support adoption because changing the law will never happen until women change their hearts, and I think politicizing this issue seems to place all of our eggs into one basket---the one of hamstringing presidential candidates.
I don't think Presidents, or candidates, should be the sole focus of the pro-life movement. There's many ways to be more effective is curbing abortions than to insist that only one person in this whole country is responsible for all abortions.
Not true. To be included in the Union, States are required, in their own laws and constitutions, to protect the right to life. Read the Fourteenth and Tenth Amendments.
The whole purpose of our government is to protect human rights, to ourselves as well as to our posterity. Government is useless otherwise.
Roe really does need to be overturned, and the states allowed to ban it.
In other words, you do not adhere to the concept of constitutional rights. Then on what basis, in your view, can the Supreme Court overturn Roe? Thanks.
I saw Hannity interview him, he started in that direction but Hannity cut him off before he could finish. It was clear to me that he never had a chance to finish. I never heard him say that in any other interview. Do you have a source?
The battle lines are presently so drawn as to demand from all--candidates and posters alike--uniformity on the the "life" issue. So much so, that anyone not taking the accepted position is seen as a dissident or as a devil based on the emoting going on at the moment.
It does not take a genius to recognize that great endeavors, and especially political endeavors, are accomplished by a "unity of purpose." That is the "unity of purpose" of the conservatives as well as the Republicans must center around first getting elected and then achieving some mutually acceptable and possible goals.
One can only imagine what is going to happen when the last Giuliani supporter is either banned from FR or so personally attacked and besmirched they have little or no interest in the conservative winner. Especially since "conservative" winner achieved this by encouraging the basest of the base to attack and destroy the good name and reputation of fellow conservatives and Republicans.
Right now, Giuliani leads in the polls and most likely has 20-30% of the Republicans supporting him. Ask yourself, where will they go and who will they support once some have demonized them beyond the pale.
Finally, it is always necessary to remember that one can predict a candidate's stance on many issues--particularly social issues--by knowing where he ran from office. In no small measure Giuliani, Hunter, Romney, Thompson, McCain and others actually reflect the views of their constituents on many issues othewise they would not be elected.
Once these candidates switch to another political venue, their voice shortly becomes more congruent with their new constituency rather than their old one. Call them names--hypocrites or worse--but this is the iron law of politics--if you don't get elected you are soon forgotten.
.
Sorry, I caught this comment after responding to your prior post.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. If you read Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton, the justices admit that abortion cannot be legal if the child is a "person." They know the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly instructs the states to protect all persons equally. That is why we pro-lifers must insist that the unborn fall under this protection, with the right to live, and not pretend they belong to a lesser class that can be treated by the states like disposable dross.
There you have it. Roe and Doe will not be overturned on any other basis.
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.