[EternalVigilance]

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.

[brothers4thID]

Head meet brick wall. He never said states had the right to kill unborn babies. He said that Roe vs wade should have been left to the states.

But keep repeating something long enough and I’m sure it will become truth.... for you

[mnehring]

I could say there is nothing pro-life about leaving the issue to a constitutional amendment or to the court’s definition of the constitution because MILLIONS will die while we wait for these actions and that leaves the decision in the courts who could change at a whim. At least the state by state approach causes immediate change.

Now, I won’t say this because I believe in both approaches. It is sad you are more willing to attack those who are fighting with you because you don’t understand or agree with their tactic. Remember who the enemy is.

[dirtboy]

There is nothing pro-life, intellectually or in practice, about those who think states or individuals have a right to destroy babies

There is nothing pro-life, intellectually or in practice, about those who think states or individuals have a right to allow the selling guns that kill our children.

There is nothing pro-life, intellectually or in practice, about those who think states or individuals have a right to allow injesting dangerous substances.

There is nothing pro-life, intellectually or in practice, about those who think individuals have a right to eat too much and become obese and cause massive health care costs.

There is nothing pro-life, intellectually or in practice, about those who think states or individuals have a right to drive SUVs that cause global warming.

There is nothing pro-life, intellectually or in practice, about those who think states or individuals have a right to [insert cause here, liberal or conservative]

Beware the federal beast, EV. It never does just one side's bidding.

[mnehring]

You know EV, reading back on these posts, one could wonder if you really are pro-life or if you are actually pro-abortion and are here to split our side and cause us to kill each other over details, which would result in no action.

I don’t believe this, but I really suggest you come back tomorrow after sleeping on this and re-read your posts and the rebuttals.

[NeoCaveman]

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.

So EV, do you believe in the federalization of all crime? Or just all murders?

[PlainOleAmerican]

Two things are very constitutional and Thompson favors both.

1) A fundamental right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, as declared in our founding document establishing our free independent sovereign status as a nation. Thompson regularly states his belief in this fundamental American right.

2) The limited scope and role of the federal government, which Thompson believes was overstepped by Roe vs. Wade, based upon faulty interpretations of law and constitutional language.

Thompson is correct on both issues. Abortion was a state issue before Roe vs. Wade and it will return to a state issue with it’s reversal. That's just a matter of simple law.

Thompson is also correct that no constitutional amendment is required to protect life, which is already specifically protected in the Declaration of Independence, but wrongly interpreted by Roe vs. Wade.

Last, he is also right to assert that the federal government nor you have the right to mandate policy to the states from on high in Washington DC.

All of this is American, conservative and PRO-LIFE!

Nowhere is it suggested here or by Thompson, that the states should then use their power to legalize abortion...

That, was a figment of your imagination.