Frankly I don't think states should get to say an unborn baby is not a person. We have the technology to actually see the baby in the womb and we all know it is a live human being. That child should also have a federal right-to-life just like the rest of us.
What Thompson wants to do is have it both ways. He wants credit for calling the child or Terry or whomever persons but he doesn't want to give them the legal protections other persons get. They are half persons kind of like slaves were.
And if the states had decided to decide the other way, would it be OK for President Clinton to send troops in to ensure that Terri had been killed? If you give the government a sword, first imagine that the worst possible person is wielding that sword. The founders solution was to divide authority among the branches and between the states and the federal government.
People in Terry Shiavo's condition have recovered.
Some people in comas have recovered. I don't think there has been a single case of someone who had brain damage as extensive as Terri's who has ever recovered.
And it doesn't mean the federal government shouldn't step in if a state is denying a citizen her right-to-life.
The state determined (after lengthy court hearings) that, prior to the incident that brought her to her PVS, she had made a verbal request to her -- then husband -- that she would never want her life to be continued if she found herself incapacitated with slim chance of recovery. Does having the liberty to life also give one the liberty to choose not to continue living if there is no dignity attached with it? I say yes. What is your view on the matter?
It is appalling that you think it's just politics.
I didn't find the politics of the issue as appalling as I found the emotional pandering of the pundits...particularly Glenn Beck.
Frankly I don't think states should get to say an unborn baby is not a person. We have the technology to actually see the baby in the womb and we all know it is a live human being. That child should also have a federal right-to-life just like the rest of us.
These points, too, will eventually become moot. Any potential future legislation making it unlawful to terminate the life of an unborn fetus can easily be skirted by the effectiveness of the 'morning after' pill.
What Thompson wants to do is have it both ways.
What he's probably doing is pandering to pro-lifers because he knows there is not a chance in hell of doing anything about this issue while being a sitting president. So, he takes an interesting approach by extolling the virtues of federalism, skirting having to say that he cannot affect the issue as a president, and minimizing the ill will of the narrow-minded Values-Voter.