"Hey, who ya callin' a metrognome?"
Posted on 01/15/2008 12:22:46 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Quit spamming. You’re on every thread with the same nonsense.
Money speaks, has his campaign contributions been going up to match his “surge”?
“Amen” to all you said re Huckabee; he’s just dreadful. He scares me more than Hillary does, sadly.
QFT. Post of the day.
All you are doing here is helping Fred, I know that is not your motive, but you are doing a GOOD thing!
Statement from Fred Thompson
Contact: Press Office, 571-730-1010; www.Fred08.com
MCLEAN, Virginia, Nov. 29 /Standard Newswire/ -- Senator Fred Thompson released the following statement tonight regarding abortion:
"In tonight's debate we saw once again that on abortion, Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice and Mitt Romney is multiple choice. I believe abortion should only be allowed in the instances of rape, incest and the life of the mother and penalties should be assessed against the abortion doctor and not the woman."
But apparently for Thompson, less than 100% of babies should have a right to life.
“I received e-mails saying that Texas law allows parents to abort their grandchildren when we were able to pass the parental notification and then, despite resistance from some of the pro-life activists because “the law allows mothers and doctors to abort babies,” and “it would allow parents to choose to abort their grandchildren,” we were able to pass the prenatal protection act and parental consent laws.”
In short, notification, good, consent, bad. If you keep that in mind, you won’t have any trouble with any pro-life groups.
Regarding pro-lifers who state that they support banning abortion except in cases of rape or incest, not only do I not think that they are being consistent on the issue, I think that they are (without realizing it) punishing the children for the sins of their fathers, something that goes against Judeo-Christian and American values. Still, a candidate who would support an abortion ban in 99% of cases is better than one who would support an abortion ban in no cases.
When someone says that Fred has a 100% pro-life voting record, it means that in 100% of the votes taken in the Senate related to abortion Fred voted pro-life (actually, IIRC, Fred did make one vote in his first year in office that could be described as “pro-choice,” so he would more accurately be described as having a 97% pro-life voting record). There was never a vote taken in the Senate on whether there should be an abortion ban with exceptions for rape and incest.
BTW, while I agree with you that abortion should not be legal except as the unintended consequence of saving the life of the mother, as I wrote in my post above I will not oppose someone like Fred Thompson or George W. Bush merely because they would support a rape-or-incest exception to an abortion ban.
Bakers tune in to Thompson? This headline takes the cake.
"Hey, who ya callin' a metrognome?"
Such exceptions undermine the entire logic of the pro-life position: life is sacred. It turns us into moralistic overbearing sexists who want to inflict the onerous burden of childbearing on women, except under the most hideous and unbearable circumstances. If abortion is acceptable by degrees, then it is fundamentally acceptable. I believe that electing Thompson will increase our chances of getting another O'Connor, Kennedy or Souter.
I heartily disagree. Making this a black-and-white issue at this time in our national disagreement over abortion conflates a moral ideal with the reality of a free republic. The fact is, there will always be spiritually impoverished women who seek abortions illegally if they can't get them legally, and no law will stop that, any more than Prohibition stopped alcohol consumption or addiction. There is much to be said not only for education as the proper solution, but also for the incremental approach to overturning what the SCOTUS has long called "settled law."
Extremism in defense of the unborn is no vice; but it's not going to win this particular election, in which the populace is divided 50-50 on most issues. It's better to get a man in the job who knows what direction to push towards — and has shown that he will vote and has voted in that direction — than to vainly insist on perfection in a candidate, which will only contribute to the final Democrat/socialist overthrow of this nation.
Somehow, I think I’ll trust the National Right to Life Cmte instead of you.
>> Christ’s Kingdom on Earth is the answer. What is your question?
Where can I get some good waffles?
[Not to make light — I understand your point ... I just thought it was funny]
H
We in Tennessee will vote for FT tommorrow in early vote
Even if Fred Thompson was pro-abortion, he would still nominate a Scalia or Thomas to the Supreme Court, since he is first and foremost a judicial conservative and federalist.
Regarding how exceptions undermine the logic of the pro-life position, I agree 100%, but we can’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. On the abortion issue, I’d still take a George W. Bush over any other president we’ve ever had, since he has put his money where his mouth is when it comes to abortion. The fact that President Bush states that he believes in a rape-or-incest exception has not made his handling of the issue any less principled.
I don't care if the nation disagrees anymore than I care if the nation agrees 99-1 in favor of abortion. After 35 years of savage child sacrifice, I feel God's hot breath, and the hair is standing up on my neck.
God Bless.
I agree that no one can ethically consent to elective intentional abortion.
However, after Roe, Doe, and Casey, we had to deal with the reality that any 14 year old girl was able to do so in Texas. Sometimes without her parents knowing, because all the clinic had to do was send a certified letter to the address she gave them. There was no responsibility on the part of anyone to ensure that the address was correct or had received the letter.
Now, someone has to sign an affidavit stating that they are her parent or guardian before the abortion. The doc must document his counseling and the fact that consent is on the chart.
(There is the judicial bypass, but that’s another problem that we can’t overcome until Roe is overturned.)
We believe that the new regulations are cutting the numbers of minor abortion - because parents do not consent or the girls and their boyfriends are more careful because the threat of Mom and Dad having to consent is too much to risk.
No, actually Huckabee doesn't. At least, not since Fred got the NRTL endorsement, at which point the Huckster figured out he could get away with lying to his ignorant followers, pretend he's always been for the federal amendment, and then use it to moralize over others and take cheap shots at Thompson.
More proof of global warming!
This should be a state issue. I think the "all or nothing" way of thinking just damages the GOP.
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.