Posted on 07/10/2007 9:06:01 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
Brothers,
Your discussion with EV is nearly carbon copy of one I had a month or two back.
I asked him if we allowed states to enable “protection of life” by regulating the laws concerning murder, what was wrong with similar mechanism for abortion. No real answer, just attempts to weasel out of it by saying no state has the right to recognize murder (which is *not* the point of contention, the point is who regulates, defines and enforces the law).
His zeal for the prolife cause is clouding his judgment on matters of limited Government, Constitution, and Federalism.
Abortion can and should be treated in same ways as we treat matters wrt protection of life and property - states regulate property crimes and violence against persons, and even regulate cases such as fetal murder (eg in Texas killing a pregnant woman is a double homicide).
I am pro-life, but I wouldn’t throw away other principles of good Government unnecessarily just to stake out the most possible extreme position on it (a position BTW that is far less likely to be implemented than the simple and constitutionally solid “repeal Roe and return it to the states” position).
Not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.
Of course the Constitution doesn’t grant rights. But, it does describe the right to life quite explicitly, in the Preamble and the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. The Republican platform since Reagan has pointed out this unarguable fact. Thompson thinks that platform is disposable.
Thompson’s approach is surgical strikes, your approach is a massive air campaign. Many believe Thompson’s approach is better because it causes immediate impact instead of waiting for the air strike to take place. Others believe it is best to wait for the massive air campaign.
BUT, the result of both approaches is taking out the enemy. You are falsely implying that Thompson is pro-Abortion because he doesn’t take the ‘air strike’ approach. The argument could easily be turned by saying that by waiting and fighting for a constitutional amendment, we are allowing millions to be killed while we try to get this passed. One could argue that by trying to make this a constitutional issue, we are allowing more abortions because of the amount of time it will take to actually make this happen. The federalist approach makes impacts quickly. The airstrike approach takes longer but is wider reaching..
I think both are needed and we are doing nothing but hurting the pro-life movement when we try to destroy those who disagree on the approach.
You’re deluded.
Show it to me then, if you’re so convinced. If true, look at the context and let him address it. If that’s still not good enough, once you consider his 0% rating from NARAL and 100% ratings from SEVERAL pro-life groups, and you still think it’s not good enough, then I guess you can vote for Tom Hunterchanan or whoever you support.
You’re bringing a knife to a gun fight if you want to match political acumen with me. Now go have a drink and come back with something other than tired cliches, blatant misrepresentations and personal attacks.
Not so much, there are those running that I do trust they just aren’t in the top tier of candidates.
Amen, bro.
Of course, that argument was about Romney. No shock that in the end, neither Romney and Thompson give a rip about applying the Fourteenth Amendment to the protection of persons in the womb. In other words, they are out of step with the Reagan Republican pro-life platform.
Well, I certainly can't match your humility. /s
Assumptions are nasty things. Again, you are admitting that you are extrapolating, based on your personal views, FDT’s positions on issues with a clear disregard for his actions and detailed comments.
"I’m not willing to support laws that prohibit early term abortions”
“The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government,”
Got a link.
Thanks. A bunch of us here in Georgia worked like hell to keep that real estate. Instead, Carter, Baker, Nunn PAID the Panamanians to take it off our hands. Now the Chicoms are in there.
In the aftermath of that debacle, my car sported a bumper sticker declaring “Once we had a canal. Now we have Nunn.”
So many battles. So few troops. NO STATESMEN.
I am convinced that Romney will govern more conservative than GWB (if only because he wont do the amnesty thing).
My take from this screed (and its quite biased) is that Thompson might not be much more conservative than either.
“If Fred gets elected, I anticipate that a lot of his supporters will be disappointed by his pragmatic governing style.”
Maybe but ... DID YOU KNOW VIGUERIE BASHED REAGAN AS NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH IN THE 1980s???
So who know, maybe that *is* the real Reagan heir! A pragmatic conservative who can speak well and act badly.
The worm turns.
Given he is a federalist, given he has a strong pro life stance over the past couple of decades, given his understanding of the Constitution, perhaps in giving it back to the states, he is following the intent of the founders.
Then it is easy to make a “leap’, that under the Constitution one has a right to life liberty etc. Given that, then the very law you (and in my heart myself as well), seek is already there. Life is a right. I think the men who signed the Bill of Rights would never in their right mind think it could be interpreted any other way.
From that can come the challenges that cement the constitutional right of the unborn without the need for and added burden to the constitution.
That could be his underlying position. Following federalist and constitutional foundations.
The comments you posted are dated 1994. Do you have anything more recent? More up-to-date? More honest?
Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007) Appoint strict constructionist judges. (Jun 2007) Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports. (Jun 2007) Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000) Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999) Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
No. There is nothing pro-life, intellectually or in practice, about those who think states or individuals have a right to destroy babies without having destroyed the whole basis of our republican form of government.
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.