WE'RE GOING TO SEND FRED A THANKSGIVING DAY GIFT!
Click Here!
Posted on 11/18/2007 12:10:42 PM PST by dano1
No one is stopping you from taking the argument to the supreme court. Why don't you try it?
WE'RE GOING TO SEND FRED A THANKSGIVING DAY GIFT!
Click Here!
I think you are experiencing issues below the surface that are more important than what is stated or claimed. Good catch.
Rudy hopes to persuade voters he is okay by saying he would appoint conservative judges. Left unsaid are things like executive orders or abortions paid with federal tax dollars, or the agency positions that all affect abortion. How about defunding the ACLU and Planned Parenthood?
Romney has a similar problem. He supported the liberal line until he started running for the presidency.
McCain? Well, let’s not go there.
I am not endorsing anyone yet but pointing out that Thompson, Hunter and Tancredo have stated past positions that are consistent with their positions today.
Some of us in the deep South, or having political leanings as those in the deep South, are tired of having 537 jackasses telling us what's legal and not legal within our state. Especially considering that was not the intent of the Framers. I will not vote for a candidate that advocates nationalizing anything not explicitly intended to be by the Framers. I don't care what party they run for.
You can have a candidate who promises the unreachable goal of a constitutional amendment, or a candidate who has identified a reachable goal. Who will actually accomplish the most to restrict abortion?
Huck’s position is one that will guarantee that abortion will remain freely available.
I’ve recently changed my stance from nominal Huckabee supportr back to “undecided.” However, on this issue, I’m pretty much fully in agreement with Huckabee. As I’ve said before, as long as the 14th Amendment remains in effect, calling abortion a state issue is iffy at best, and I personally think his slavery comparison is spot-on.
He is taking this point of view because it will make Thomson look bad, he hopes. Thompson is right, states should decide, otherwise we will be back to a huge federal government, and what we need is for the states to take back their powers.
If partial birth abortion is horrendous, then what makes abortions done 2 weeks prior less horrendous? Than 4 weeks earlier? Than 2 months earlier?
Is it just less horrendous because to you because the earlier it’s done, the less the baby looks like a person? You’re falling into the pro-choice ‘viability’ argument and the ‘not yet a person’ fallacy argument.
You set in stone that it is a national, rather than a state issue, and you are one election away from an end to the state imposed restrictions.
While I certainly wouldn’t oppose a federal law against abortion, don’t we have 50 different state laws against homicide? They’re all against it, no?
Thompson’s take on things isn’t 100% what I’d like, but as of today and his remarks on Schiavo, I can live with the difference.
Moreover, let’s say a federal law comes to President Thompson’s desk. Can you see him vetoing it because it doesn’t correspond perfectly to his federalist principles? Maybe you can. I don’t know. But I’m not sorry I voted for GWB and he’s disappointed me bigtime on several occasions.
His Supreme Ct nominees are not among those!
Thompson would get to nominate two, maybe more judges. You know they’ll be as pro-life as he can get through the process. The road isn’t always expressway straight, but with him we’ll get where we want to go.
Whereas Huckabee, like Romney, like Giuliani...I just don’t trust these people.
Because we don't have enough judges who can be counted on to interpret the Constitution correctly there at the moment.
I'd really like someone who takes the "federalist" position on the abortion issue to explain to me why abortion SHOULDN'T fall under the aegis of the 14th amendment...and by "explain," I mean offer something other than rhetoric about how it agrees with their sensibilities better when things are left to the states and arguments about whether unborn children qualify as people (which is a separate issue).
I think the due process argument only flies if it is the government itself ordering the abortion. The constitution limits the government, not the people. I have no obligation whatsoever to grant you freedom of speech, nor am I prevented from establishing a religion.
Fair enough. Let’s have this debate. But, I am certain you and I would agree the decision should never have been left up to the US Supreme Court to “interpret.”
I would suggest, as an aside, that this debate will never take place if a Democrat is elected president. Holding abortion over the head of any one candidate as a single issue is counter productive to our long term goals.
How about you pimping your pro-amnesty, 'open borders for Jesus', Gomer Pyle-looking, nanny state pushing, big spending, ethically challenged, "aw-shucks" MSM darling nominee and let us conservatives worry about a few hours of stray lobbying work 20 years ago? Fred Thompson has a 100% pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment voting record in the Senate. As you know, the National Right To Life Committee (3,000 chapters in all 50 states) endorsed Senator Thompson--Not Huckabee, not Romney, but Thompson!! Fred doesn't think protecting the borders, enforcing immigration laws and ending sanctuary cities is "racist" like Mike Huckabee does!
When abortion was up to the states, the states were definitely moving towards liberalizing it, with Reagan’s CA leading the way. It is very likely that within 10 years dozens of states would have passed liberalized laws.
What Roe did was take the most extreme possible version of the pro-choice position and install it as a constitutional right, meaning it would require either an amendment or a overthrow by the Court to change it in the slightest degree.
Walking Chief Justice Roberts through the confirmation process, which will likely result in a Roberts court finally revisiting Roe v Wade at a future date.. Since Roe v Wade presently is interpreted as trumping any state law at this time, it's immaterial what efforts Thompson might have done at the state level.
Slavery is the perfect analogy to the debate over how to deal with abortion. Fred Thompson is making virtually the same popular sovereignty argument that Stephen Douglas made when he was debating Abraham Lincoln. You can say that this is injecting race but its not. Its just recognizing that this is a debate about a moral issue which is ultimately going to have to be resolved at a national level. You can’t have half the states legalize murder.
You are wrong, abortion is a states powers issue(not rights, only people have rights). If the states can’t have this power then they have none. The feds need to keep their nose out of our lives, period.
“I have lived in Tennessee all of Freds political life, and not once have I ever known him to lead an abortion fight in this state.”
I lived in Michigan all of Fred Thompson’s political life, and not once did he come to Michigan to lead an abortion fight.
But then he wasn’t elected to MI state office just as he wasn’t elected to Tennessee state office.
Would that make a difference?
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.