Posted on 11/18/2007 12:10:42 PM PST by dano1
Wow. Thanks for the information.
Yep.
I realize that a Right to Life Amendment may not be politically possible at this time, but Fred isn't even saying he wants one.
I have asked over and over for someone to explain to me the difference between a politician saying....
"I am personally pro life, but I can not impose my morals on the mother" (like every single pro choice candidate says...
And...
"I am personally pro life, but I can not impose my morals on the State". (Like Fred is saying) in fact his words were "the States have the right to make laws, even if I, Fred Thompson disagree with them.
The only feedback I have gotten is people saying that a RTL Amendment can't get passed. I know that, but I also know that Romney and Huckabee have expressed their wish to get Roe V Wade overturned (like Thompson) and then press on to a Amendment (unlike Thompson). In fact on this issue he has stated he DOES NOT want that extra step.
I want someone to tell me why it is not intellectually dishonest to say that Fred is any different, on this issue, than any other pro choice candidate. Explain to me what the difference between a mother having a choice, and a State? The end result is still a dead baby.
I’ll gladly answer your question, if you’ll first answer a couple for me:
1) Was Justice Blackmun correct in the majority decision in Roe in asserting that an unborn child is not a person.
2) Was Justice Blackmun correct in the majority decision in Roe in asserting that if the child were a person they were therefore protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?
3) Should the Republican Party nominate a candidate whose position is in direct opposition to the Reagan pro-life platform, which asserts the personhood of the unborn, and that they are therefore protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?
It’s a scary thing, actually. We know, for example, that some substances are absolutely harmful in most any quantity (ie heroin etc etc). But think about a more innocuous drug - caffeine.
Once you start down the slope of legislating that some substances can get you prosecuted, where do you stop ? Do you believe that any study in the JAMA saying findings point to some harm, for example, would give a state the ability to throw a woman in jail for endangerment ?
I don’t have an answer to this one either.
I don't believe states are going around aborting anyone.
Abortion is a state issue just like murder is, unless you have your abortion on Federal land.
Huh?
Huckabee might as well be pro abortion since his attempt to ban abortion from the federal level is a pipe dream.
Yet another politician utterly oblivious to the Constitution he would be sworn to uphold.
Right..on!
Only an amendment would keep them from granting this right.
In the case of murder by itself, the states happen to outlaw it, in various forms. But nowhere is a right to murder granted (unless you consider capital punishment murder). So it has not become the issue, problem, wholesale slaughter that abortion has become. If states were to start granting the right to murder, you would soon see a push for a constitutional amendment.
So President Huckabee would propose a Federal Murder Amendment and disband the homicide unit of every local police department and have the FBI investigate?
Worst. Candidate. Ever.
The lady driving obviously cares for the unborn, but by her very actions, she does not care about the child once it is born. I see this a lot in the pro life arena. Once the child is out of the womb, much of the caring of said child stops.
If you do not want to answer my question, and a fair one it is, so be it. BTW, Reagan was elected to office while I was in high school. It is easier to get an abortion now than it was in the early 80's. Even Sean Hannity has said that abortion will never be fully outlawed.
How about allowing states to make abortion illegal? That's the way it used to be before the court got involved, and that's the way it was since at least 1789.
Like I said, answer my questions, and I’ll answer yours. We have to have a basis for the discussion, and I’d like to know if you’re just blowing smoke.
Sean's a genius, fer sure. /s
I highly recommend Justice Rehnquist’s book on impeachments. I’ll get the name of it you cannot find it. Rehnquist covers all impeachments prior to Clinton and it is most intersting to learn why and how impeachment was used and explains why it is not viable so far today.
My feelings don’t matter. We can’t base our laws on feelings. That’s why I’m asking you what you THINK about the law, as spelled out in our Constitution.
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.