Posted on 11/08/2007 12:00:05 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
WASHINGTON -- Fred Thompson was well into a prolonged dialogue about abortion with interviewer Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday when he said something stunning for social conservatives: "I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors." He then went further: "You can't have a (federal) law" that "would take young, young girls ... and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail."
Those comments sent e-mails flying across the country reflecting astonishment and rage by pro-life Republicans who had turned to Thompson as their best presidential bet for 2008. No anti-abortion legislation ever has proposed criminal penalties against women having abortions, much less their parents. Jailing women is a spurious issue raised by abortion rights activists. What Thompson said could be expected from NARAL.
Thompson's comments revealed astounding lack of sensitivity about the abortion issue. He surely anticipated that Russert would cite Thompson's record favoring state's rights on abortion. Whether the candidate just blurted out what he said or planned it, it reflects failure to realize how much his chances for the presidential nomination depend on social conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Since it gets in the way of the SoCons goal to nationalize every moral issue, contrary to the intent of the Framers. I may disagree with Fred on more than a few things but I give credit where it's due. This is the correct position. Abortion, and any other moral issue, is an issue for the formally separate and sovereign states.
“I don’t dance to anyone’s tune either. Not even Fred’s.”
ROFLMAO!
I didnt even know Fred could sing.
I’ve come to this conclusion about Mr Nonchalant-about-the-race:
Why should I want Fred to be President more than Fred wants to be President?
Your bashing of Novak is uninformed.
I don't recall Pro-Life groups vowing to put "young young" girls in jail for abortion.
My understanding is that any restrictions or prohibition would be on abortion providers.
Fred Thompson is exaggerating, and should be called on the carpet for it.
“Laughable. Fred makes a “blunder” about abortion and Rudy is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control, and thrice-married, yet he leading the race and gets the endorsement of Pat Robertson.”
Ahem, that should be a sign of how badly Fred Thompson has blown it!! Back in June the SoCons were looking for the man on the white horse to sweep them away. Fred was riding high as the unannounced candidate, nearly with Rudy in national polls *before* jumping in.
Fred could have been IT, except:
1. Didnt go along with Federal Marriage Amendment.
2. Gets exposed that he did some lobbying work for pro-abort , and that he was squishy on campaign trail on abortion (BFD, long time ago), yet his record was prolife (ok, back on track)
3. Not for HLA (hardcore folks get off the bus)
4. Support for McCain-Feingold is an issue, but on Laura’s show in early Sept, flubs his defense of it (conservatives grimace at a reminder he’s a McCain-lite)
5. Gets bad reviews on his speeches in Orlando and elsewhere (political pros ask - cant he beat Hillary? - and decide “Nope”)
6. Mentions he got his values at the kitchen table not church (great, Hillary can out-Christian him)
7. Shows up with Tim and not only get caught over-explaining on his non-support for HLA, he throws in a point that is not even relevant and is grating to prolifers, its a pro-abort talking point to raise the spectre of teen pregnant women going to jail! (prolifers shake their heads)
What is the result? While Thompson has his Christian Right supporters, the social conservatives have fractured in confusion.
Romney, who has wooed the conservatives pretty consistently, picked up many endorsements, others who don’t like him or have “Mormon” issues have gone elsewhere:
Wildmon endorses Huckabee
Robertson endorses Rudy (WTF!?!?)
Brownback endorses McCain (okay, pro-amnesty types)
Robert R. Taylor endorses Romney - his comment on Thompson “I dont see the energy there”
Bob Jones III, chancellor of the university, told the Greenville News that he, too, is endorsing Romney. “This is all about beating Hillary [Clinton],” Jones told the newspaper. “And I just believe that this man has the credentials both personally and ideologically in terms of his view about what American government should be to best represent the rank and file of conservative Americans,” he said. “If it turns out to be [Rudy] Giuliani and Hillary we’ve got two pro-choice candidates, and that would be a disaster.” Jones, when asked whether Romney’s Mormon faith was a problem for him, replied: “What is the alternative? Hillary’s lack of religion or an erroneous religion?”
The BOTTOM LINE: Romney is the campaign’s alternative to Rudy. Thompson could have been the alternative, but he made all the wrong moves since June. His positions are wrong to unify the conservatives, his campaign speeches are too dull to energize most supporters, and his campaign was too late (yes, Sept was too late a start) and too slow out of the gate. As a result, he has lost conservative support.
His I’ll do it my way attitude may be endearing to some, to be others, like me, we ask: Why should I want Fred to be President more than Fred wants to be President?
And that, in the end, will be an epitaph on his campaign. Fred Thompson won’t be President. It won’t happen, and he may be just fine with that. I just hope his supporters can deal with it as well.
To change the law is a LONG time project requiring patience and somtimes compromise, moving the line, and changing minds.
***I think the minds are changed, and the law is what has not caught up. That’s why Duncan Hunter’s personhood-at-conception plan could change things quickly, without a requirement of overturning Roe v. Wade.
Before you lump me into the purer-than-thou mold, you should check my proposal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917001/posts?page=53#53
and note that Olde North Church, who was banned for pushing compromise a little too hard had said that the proposal would save lives.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917651/posts?page=195#195
What do you mean, "allowing" states to adopt abortion, post Roe v. Wade
What do you think the effect of overturning Roe v. Wade is going to be?
Overturning Roe will not stop a single abortion. It will simply return the law to the states, most of which, I'm quite sure, will legalize all first trimester abortions and restrict or outlaw the rest.
No state punished abortion as murder before Roe, not a single one, not ever.
1) You're admitting that you believe that unborn babies are not persons.
2) That belief means that you agree with Blackmun, and the substance of Roe vs. Wade.
You may want to make them this, and I can see why you want to do that, but this is an idea that is born of emotion, and is ultimately extraordinarily unwise.
A) A typical liberal tactic: Accuse those you can't out-argue of emotionalism.
B) You're the one basing your arguments on something other than knowledge, logic and reason. In fact, your arguments amount to little more than an affirmation of ancient myths about human development in the womb, not on modern scientific understanding based in the clear evidence from DNA that human life can only be identified as beginning at ONE point: The point and moment of conception.
C) Your definition of wisdom is spurious. How wise can it be to kill your posterity, or empower those who do so?
Are you serious?
It doesn't matter what I think, you think, or Fred Thompson thinks. Given Roe vs Wade, any law passed banning abortion would be ruled unconstitutional. There are only two remedies. (1) The Supreme Court reverses Roe Vs Wade or (2) the Constitution is amended to clarify it for the SCOTUS.
Surely you knew that, since those are the only two ways your goals can be met. And you do understand that Thompson's approach is #1, don't you?
If you don't think you can get a single state to make abortion illegal after Roe vs Wade was reversed, how do you think you will get 2/3s of them to do it to change the Constitution?
A. You are beyond reason, there IS no arguing with you. You haven’t out-argued anyone at all.
B. I’m not arguing anything at all about science, knowledge or morality. I’m only pointing out what the law is.
C. I’m not advocating the “killing of my posterity”. That’s nonsense and really, a lie on your part. I’m only pointing out that there is more involved in investing fetuses with legal “personhood” than your simplisic world view seems to be able to grasp.
I have to ask myself: How do I let myself get dragged into these unproductive, sophomoric, pointless exchanges?
The Constitution cannot be changed without an enormous shift in public opinion on this subject or a violent revolution to overthrow the established order.
The way to accomplish this shift is unclear - but calling all the people who don't support such a change now vile names isn't a good start.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
"[T]he Declaration of Independence is the ringbolt to the chain of your nation's destiny. . . . The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost." - Frederick Douglass, "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro," July 5, 1852
Along with all the nonconstitutional red herrings Blackmun included in that piece of trash were the following words:
“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment.”
Blackmun was very much aware that he was making it up- finding a right to kill in “the concept of ordered liberty,” and in order to do it, he had to ignore the “well-known facts of fetal development.”
Even death advocates openly acknowledge that they wish he had written that-ahem-”decision” differently.
There is a third option. Many of us who care about this massive, ongoing injustice know about it.
Why doesn’t Fred Thompson?
Ahem, the race isn't over. The first ballot has yet to be cast in a primary. I doubt if any Rep will garner enough votes to win the nomination on the first ballot. Fred hasn't blown anything yet.
The bottom line is that Fred is still a viable candidate who will grow in strength, particularly from votes in the South. Pat Buchanan won NH as did John McCain, Henry Cabot Lodge, Edmund S. Muskie, Gary Hart, and Paul Tsongas. None of these winners wound up as nominees of their parties. Clinton came in third in NH in 1992.
Jim Noble wrote:
What do you mean, “allowing” states to adopt abortion, post Roe v. Wade
What do you think the effect of overturning Roe v. Wade is going to be?
Overturning Roe will not stop a single abortion. It will simply return the law to the states, most of which, I’m quite sure, will legalize all first trimester abortions and restrict or outlaw the rest.
. x . x . x .
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, then there no longer is a right to abortion contained within the mysterious right to privacy.
My point was that abortion is taking an innocent human life.
And that, by a consistent reading, the United States Constitution cannot permit that. Even if a state legalizes abortion, it could still be unconstitutional under the Constitution. A state permitting abortion (murder) would be a violation of several constitutional provisions, including the amendment that denies the taking of a life without due process.
By legalizing abortion, a state is passing a law that allows a private party to take another’s life and the state does not protect that life or permit it or its advocates due process in the legal system to protect itself.
Of course, this is all premised on the idea that taking an innocent unborn life is taking the life of a person as understood in the Constitution.
We can always continue with a court-created or legislated, nonscientific statement that a human life is not a human life until its born or “viable” or we can say it’s not a person until its “conscious” or whatever.
You know, the same kind of game slaveowners and traders played with Africans in order to justfify enslaving them for their own convenience. Or the games Hitler played in defining down the humanity of Jews, gypsies, etc., in order to have a justification to mass murder them.
Bottom line: If an unborn baby is a human being (which science and common sense says it is), then it has constitutional rights that would be violated by a state pro-abortion law.
That was the point.
So, Thompson just brought up a straw man -- one a pro-abortion politician would use -- to oppose such an amendment.
I guess your post #300 doesn’t apply.
JV: “I’ve done so on this thread to the best of my ability, and I am now calling an end to my posts on this thread.”
Oh, no, it's not a straw man. Thompson just told the truth.
If - and it's a very big IF - a law could be passed to outlaw abortion because in the eyes of the law it was murder - there would need to be vigorous enforcement activity. Hundreds of people would have to be arrested and incarcerated (if not thousands).
He who says A says B.
It is dishonest to tell people to vote for a Constitutional amendment but not to worry because no one will be punished.
To accomplish what you seek, you will have to tell the people what the result of your proposal will be.
In 1917, the Constitution was amended (amazingly) to criminalize a behavior that a huge majority of people did not view as criminal.
The result was predictable - and that predictable result occurred despite vigorous enforcement.
This battle cannot be won in the political arena until it is won in peoples homes and hearts.
W said that, FDT now says that, and any politician who tells you otherwise is a liar.
If the HLA could be implemented by decree, nothing would change.
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.