[CharlesWayneCT]

Somehow, the republican gay community Log Cabin Republicans seems to differ with your opinion about Mitt and gays, as they too are running ads about what they say Mitt used to say because they are upset that he hasn’t lived up to their interpretation of what they heard him say.

Your characterization of Mitt is so totally off that it is hard to imagine you actually could believe what you are writing.

It’s not like Fred Thompson has been working in the pro-life movement his entire life. Or even an entire day.

Seriously, I know he’s voted right, and I admire that, but point to ONE paragraph he wrote or said before he started talking about running for President that demonstrates he was “at one with” the pro-life, anti-abortion movement.

Even now he can’t bring himself to grant to the unborn the same inalienable right to life that we grant, at the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT level, to every other human being. No, for this ONE class of humans, Fred believes that life should be defined by the states, an argument that generally is great for a federalist, but not when it comes to basic human rights, like say abortion, or slavery.

Nobody thinks now that slavery should have been left to individual states. But Fred thinks killing babies should be left to the states.

I’ll support him anyway, because from a federal government perspective, at THIS time, it’s about all we need to get the ball rolling.

But eventually we need a president and a congress that will act on abortion like we once acted on slavery. And Fred Thompson is NOT at that point.

I’m not saying Romney is, or any other candidate is (although some certainly are). I’m just saying that people who support glass candidates should not throw stones.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

As it happens there are no federal laws against murdering children or adults in any of the 50 states.

[Qwinn]

“But eventually we need a president and a congress that will act on abortion like we once acted on slavery.”

You mean Civil War?

I’m as pro-life as they come, but really, you should think about that statement before repeating it.

Qwinn

[TAdams8591]

"No, for this ONE class of humans, Fred believes that life should be defined by the states, an argument that generally is great for a federalist, but not when it comes to basic human rights, like say abortion, or slavery."

I was discussing this about the time you wrote it, making precisely the same point. Very much agreed.

[John Valentine]

But Fred thinks killing babies should be left to the states.

Killing adults is left to the states. What's wrong with the idea of leaving ALL killing to the states?

[wardaddy]

while I disagree that the WBTS was simply over slavery, ending abortion could be a fight one day

no doubt....amongst many other culture issues

it’s killed many times the number the North American bound slave trade did...and counting.

Fred seems ambivalent.

[SuziQ]

But eventually we need a president and a congress that will act on abortion like we once acted on slavery.

You seem to forget that we had to have a Civil War to get to the point where the President and Congress finally acted.

A Human Life Amendment would be a wonderful thing, and is the Federalist thing to do, but it is not possible at this time. There will have to be a HUGH change of heart in this country before that. Fred knows this, and is recommending an alternate way that will save as many babies as possible.