Posted on 11/18/2007 12:10:42 PM PST by dano1
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee rejects letting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.
"It's the logic of the Civil War," Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."
"For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can't simply have 50 different versions of what's right," he said on Fox News Sunday.
The former Arkansas governor, who has drawn within striking distance of Mitt Romney in Iowa's leadoff presidential caucuses, said he was surprised by the National Right to Life Committee's endorsement of Fred Thompson.
"But my surprise was nothing compared to the surprise of people across America who had been faithful supporters of right to life," said Huckabee, a conservative who is challenging Thompson's claim to the title.
"Fred's never had a 100 percent record on right to life in his Senate career. The records reflect that. And he doesn't support the human life amendment which is most amazing because that's been a part of the Republican platform since 1980," Huckabee said.
In a pre-recorded interview on ABC's "This Week," Thompson said Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision allowing legal abortion, should be overturned, with states allowed to decide individually whether to permit abortions.
"We need to remember what the status was before Roe v. Wade," Thompson said in the interview, taped Friday.
Huckabee also previewed his first television ad of the campaign on the program. The 60-second spot stars actor Chuck Norris, and is scheduled to begin running in Iowa on Monday.
"My plan to secure the border. Two words: Chuck. Norris," says Huckabee, who stares into the camera before it cuts away to show Norris standing beside him.
"Mike Huckabee is a lifelong hunter, who'll protect our Second Amendment rights," says the tough-guy actor, who takes turns addressing viewers.
"There's no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard, only another fist," Huckabee says.
"Mike Huckabee wants to put the IRS out of business," Norris adds.
"When Chuck Norris does a push-up, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the earth down," Huckabee says.
"Mike's a principled, authentic conservative," says Norris.
In closing, Huckabee says: "Chuck Norris doesn't endorse. He tells America how it's going to be. I'm Mike Huckabee and I approved this message. So did Chuck."
Huckabee acknowledged that the ad probably won't change a lot of minds.
"But what it does do is exactly what it's doing this morning," he said. "Getting a lot of attention, driving people to our Web site, giving them an opportunity to find out who is this guy that would come out with Chuck Norris in a commercial."
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
One step at a time.
This is a deliberate attempt to undermine the endorsement of Fred Thompson. If he were to succeed in pushing this argument, which is fortunately doubtful, it would probably make it harder to achieve what pro-lifers want, protection for the unborn. It would probably delay rather than facilitate any actual change.
In one sense, he is right. If the voters of one state or another decided to issue a license to murder, that would probably be unconstitutional. But the constitution normally leaves it to the states to decide these matters. If a state perversely did that, then you would have to deal with it, but not by means of federal laws and federal prosecutions of murderers.
You can argue that an embryo or fetus is also a protected “person” under the Constitution, just as blacks were finally seen as protected persons, which was nailed down by an amendment but was arguably there from the beginning.
But the conservative justices presently on the Court disagree with one another on whether a fetus is a “person,” as defined in constitutional law, and there are certainly not 5 votes for that position at present.
To be realistic, first we need to void Roe v. Wade, and return abortion to the states, where it was. Then the fight can proceed from there, in the states and/or at the national level. But if you tried to do everything at once, you would accomplish nothing.
Clara Lou, In your own words, please tell me the when it comes to the issue of life, what is the difference between letting a Mother decide, or the State? Do both end in the life of the baby? Do both still allow for legalized killing of another human life?
I really want to know how you or anyone else can say that it is OK for a State to sanction abortion, vs it being a mothers choice. And how is it any different than a pro choice candidate saying, "Even if I am personally against it, I can not impose my morals on the Mother/State?
I absolutely, positively am not going to base my vote on this issue, but I just want honesty.
Thank You, in advance, for answering my question even if it has been answered before.
absolutely right. Leaving it to the states would mean permanent legal abortion in NY, MASS, etc.
I do not fell that the state has the power to put a gun to a woman's head and make her carry full term. If the state has that kind of power, then it can tell a woman what she can or cannot do while pregnant.
BTW, are you a smoker?
I could see a Souter being put forth because of pragmatic reasons (never get through a democrat senate).
I don’t think that I or anyone can help you. Your mind is closed, and the way you state your question (which I was not addressing) is indicative of that.
The fact is that we are living with Roe v. Wade. In 20 or 30 years, we haven’t been able to achieve a right to life amendment...etc. [You know the rest.]
I agree that almost every other issue should be local, States rights, so it is honestly frustrating, but in the case of life of the baby I don't see the difference.
I am being hypocritical, and I admit it, because in the end this issue will not be a deciding factor for me. And to tell you the truth Clara Lou, this is one of the very few things that I agree with Huckabee on, and as of today, he is not getting my vote either.
Thank you, truly, for at least trying to answer my question - which probably does not have a satisfactory answer to anyway. It is just one of those things as mere mortals we will have to trust the Lord with.
Due process for an unborn child in an abortion case would require the state to be the initiator of the action or there to be a crime involved. Then again, I also don’t see the part that props up Roe v Wade or any number of liberal interpretations of the Constitution. It’s kind of plain language that people keep trying to squeeze into something else.
In other words, you're a pro-abort.
No, the 14th defines citizenship citizenship - which is where it talks about being born in the United States. Then it goes on to grant rights to persons. Persons is a broader catagory then citizens and Roe v. Wade was the first time that a human being was determined to not be a person.
What I was tying to point out was that murder is unconstitutional whether government is involved or not. Abortion is murder because no due process has taken place for the unborn.
We simply can’t legislate morals through constitutional amendments. Abortion, marriage, alcohol, and on and on. It’s just a bad idea.
You're half right, they are both wrong. It seems they both are willing to relinquish a tool in the fight against this intrinsic evil. It doesn't have to be either/or, and I have heard no good arguments that one approach is any better than the other. One approach is NOT anymore constitutional than the other.
All the approaches being discussed are Constitutional, and I have yet to see anyone make a valid argument that either approach isn't. One approach takes nothing away from the other. This is pure propaganda and spin, and quite frankly it makes no sense to me to have this fight. Fred says, "only States Rights", and Huck says, "only a Constitutional Amendment". This is a Problem. I have a solution, and his name is Duncan Lee Hunter.
Someone else has posted a thread that addresses the issue:
Is Waiting For a Constitutional Ban on Abortion Really Pro-Life?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1927653/posts
I think you addressed your reply to the wrong person.
Thanks I will have to read it more carefully later.
I could see where the arugment may be right, but what would really make that argument come true would be to have it go back to the states, and end all federal funding of abortion. That’s how you really make sure you end abortion in those states. Cut off the federal money supply. Why can’t he come out and say he’ll do that? If it’s not a federal issue, then end federal funding and get the federal govt out of the issue entirely.
Wrong, presenting an argument that a majority of the court will agree with is the issue.
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.