Next.

Oops - I forgot. There is no "next." This is all he has.

Pro-lifers have serious qualms about Romney, Fred, and McCain.

There's a reason why Huck is doing so well in the polls.

I'm as pro-life as the day is long (I was one of the 1st here to say there's no way I'd vote for Rudy because of his abortion stance), and I don't have a single qualm about any of those three. None. Nada.

embryonic stem cell research?

Do you support IVF? Should it be banned? Has Huckabee come out and called for it to be banned?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

as a "top 3" key issue. Furthermore, I think the ESCR question becomes moot soon, with the developments that have come about in recent months with adult stem cells and the discovery about generating stem cells from skin cells.

...here's the deal: I don't treat these things as litmus tests, as you apparently do. I look at the whole case...just like I look at Giuliani's bigger picture. He is disqualified with me because of not just his pro-abortion position, but also his positions and history on gun control and gay marriage.

So, the fact that Huckabee appears to be very consistent on the pro-life front (and I think you'd fine few who would argue that), that is NOT my only consideration. It's at the top of the list, but a pro-life, liberal-on-everything-else candidate like Huckabee doesn't cut it.

Pro-lifers - Defined as those who have worked the trenches to save the unborn for the last 3 decades do not have any qualms with Fred, not as a group.

If we want to use your definition, which apparently is - pro-lifer(n). Mike Huckabee or one of his supporters for the Presidency - then you do have a point.

I am sick and tired of this, I will not allow you, nor your populist, liberal candidate to hijack the movement that I have done a lot of heavy lifting for. Name one thing you have ever done that has stopped even a single abortion from happening? Do you have any substantive evidence of any abortions that didn't happen because of Mike Huckabee's crusade?

I know that I have prevented abortions contemplated by real life women. I know that Fred Thompson has helped pass actual legislation that has STOPPED abortions from happening.

Get off your high horse and put up or shut up.

Pro-lifers - Defined as those who have worked the trenches to save the unborn for the last 3 decades do not have any qualms with Fred, not as a group.

Look to the polls for validation to see who pro-lifers are coalescing behind.

Answer my questions?

...my own record. We need to focus on the record and the policy statements of the candidates.

Mike did a lot of good pro-life things in Arkansas. I linked to his accomplishments. In my diary, I also said that Fred did lobby to reduce restrictions for a pro-abortion rights group. It doesn't sound good, but it is the truth.

Or he billed a pro-abortion group for his time? Let's be specific.

If you are going to run around lecturing about who "pro-lifers" support, you really owe it to all of us to establish some credibility on the issue. You don't know me from anyone, so perhaps I shouldn't expect you to know what I've done for the pro-life cause. How about these folks -

National Right to Life
MCCL - One of my favorite organizations in the world (they have some of the best billboards on I-94)
West Virginia Right to Life
California Right to Life
Wisconsin Right to Life
South Carolina Citizens for Life

They are not "true" pro-lifers?

NRLC made their decision partly due to "electability" -- at that time they thought Fred was more electable.

And yes, Fred did directly lobby administration officials for 3 hours.

I've had 3-hour lunches with customers before where we spent 2.5 hours talking about golf and baseball and 30 mins talking about business.

So what did they discuss? How did Fred affect their strategy?

3 hours is nothing.

All I know is within the space of that time, Fred lobbied administration officials on behalf of the pro-abortion group.

But it is public knowledge that Fred personally met with the pro-abortion group leader 22 times.

Personal Ignorance used as an insult

Well thats an interesting strategy might even work. If we were democrats.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

...that would contradict anything I just said?

Your assertion is you don't know what happened so you feel free to assume the worst.

The man was working as counsel. He probably can't say without the client releasing him from his confidentiality obligation.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I don't know what was said in the space of those 3 hours. All I know is that Fred was paid to lobby to reduce restrictions for a pro-abortion group.

All you know is that Fred was paid to lobby

The rest of your sentence is conjecture

Actually, I believe Fred was paid to give advice on "how to lobby", not to lobby directly.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

who paid him and what was he paid to do? This is public information.

law firm paid him. He was an employee of the firm. And he has a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate. And apparently any lobbying work that was done on behalf of the client - PP - was for naught, since no changes that they would have approved were made to any legislation. Can you show proof otherwise?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

And apparently any lobbying work that was done on behalf of the client - PP - was for naught, since no changes that they would have approved were made to any legislation.

It doesn't matter if Fred's lobbing was effective or not. The fact that he did it is troubling. The fact that he still does not regret it is even more troubling.

MCCL did not make their endorsement based on electibility, since they didn't endorse a "front-runner", and they are one of the most solid pro-life organizations I know of. I asked you about several organizations, and you came up with an answer(if a weak one) to one of them. Further, that is not an exhaustive list of the pro-life organizations that have endorsed Fred.
You see, you have the burden of proof here. You insinuated repeatedly throughout this site that if someone is pro-life they have to be for Huckabee(actually you insinuated the opposite - that supporters of other candidates can't be pro-life). If you can explain away all of those groups I listed, then maybe your point can be allowed to stand.
Even more than that, you have already impugned the character of the largest pro-life organization in the country by implying that electability caused them to endorse someone that does not meet their criteria.
If that isn't enough, the spokeperson was explaining the decision, but the decisionmakers themselves never made the claim that they picked Fred over others because of electibility.

I don't know MCCL well enough to comment on them.

Right to Life said it was due to electability:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071119/NATIO...

NRLC must be kicking itself right now... their endorsement did little to help Fred.

Perhaps reason #5 or 6: Huckabee is a Teflon candidate.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

The bottom line is that he is for amending the Constitution to protect unborn children from being slaughtered vis-a-vis abortion.
____________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

That's just lazy and really not worthy of you.

There have been seven versions of the HLA introduced in Congress. They range from versions that outlaw abortion in virtually all cases to versions (most of them) that basically say, "Nothing in this Constitution guarantees a right to an abortion." That's the version that was voted on in 1983, the only recorded vote, which went down 49-50.

At best, most of the versions of the HLA barely have the impact of overturning Roe and returning the issue to the states to deal with, and in all of those cases, we never have the fact that Roe (and Griswold) are bad law and need to be overturned so they can't be used for a precedent for other stuff.

So, bottom line, you could be "for HLA" and hold Rudy's position.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

You can essentially figure out which version Huck would support from his previous statements. See:

"Q: South Dakota had some proposed legislation to outlaw all abortion except saving the life of a mother, no exceptions for rape or incest. You said you'd sign that. Why?

A: I always am going to err on the side of life. I believe life is precious. It's because of my view that God is the creator and instigator of life."

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Huckabee_Abortion.htm

See also:

http://georgiaforlife.blogspot.com/2007/11/georgia-right-to-life-pac-end...

If your point is that you know more than Huck about the history of the HLA (and its many variations), then I'll concede the point. But let's not elevate form over substance. We know where Huck stands on abortion.
____________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

of a ConAmend as far reaching and divisive as this to be form. Substance is required, and I find substance sadly lacking from his whole campaign.

If we're talking specifically about the SD language I doubt that would get 30 votes in the Senate.

The issue here is that he makes a big deal about the HLA, his RS supporters verge on the opinion that you can't be pro-life if you aren't for it and yet we have no specifics. My guess is that no version would pass, but what you've suggested would be a major policy defeat that would also make getting conservative judges confirmed a near impossibility. Net result would be very bad.

IMO he's just throwing stuff against the wall so we can watch it slide off. All you end up with is ruined stuff ans a messy wall
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I do believe you can be prolife and not support the HLA. And I certainly consider Fred to be prolife.
____________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

And thank you for thoughtfully addressing the question. The vast majority of Huck posters here at RS do him no favors because of their abject refusal to address legit questions.

Thanks...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

HLA is a matter of principle to see who has the spine to stand for his convictions.

I always thought that the main goal of the pro-life movement was to stop as many abortions as possible. So, let's say we have two options: Option A, candidate who pushes impossible constitutional amendment which goes down in flames, resulting in harder confirmation battles for judges, and therefore less chance of Roe being overturned. Option B, candidate who doesn't imflame the pro-choice crowd by pushing the impossible amendment, and can therefore get a judge through who casts the deciding vote on Roe.

Obviously, Option B leads to less abortions in the long run. So, do we really want the guy (option A) who stands for his conviction at the expense of a whole bunch more abortions being performed? Seems like an odd position to take if the ultimate goal is less abortions.

Expend only as much political capital as necessary to achieve the maximal benefit. The problem is opposing HLA on principle.

If the HLA says "Nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion." please enlighten me as to exactly how that meets your stated goals any better than overturning Roe.

The devil is ALWAYS in the details and Huck is woefully short on those on every issue. So are you.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I thought you were making reference to an old Freak Brothers comic. They joined a hippy organization called Constitutional Rights And Protections. Otherwise, C.R.A.P.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

HLA vs. overturning Roe. Obviously we should attempt to do both.

We know Hucks position on abortion; and we also know that most of the other candidates also oppose abortion.

The problem is that many of Hucks supporters have taken the position that one must support the HLA (still not resolving which version) as a credential for "true opponent" to abortion. Support for FMA seems to be along for the ride.

In my view and many others here a RedState, 1) HLA has less chance than a snowball in perdition to pass Congress and 38 states in the next 20 years at least; 2) a crusade to pass HLA will so mobilize pro-choice partisans that it will be impossible to shift the Supreme Court, thereby proving counterproductive.

What upsets me is the view that supporting HLA is the only acceptible position for anti-abortion people - and the candidates must also agree with that approach to prove their anti-abortion credentials.

And Rightly So!

In my view and many others here a RedState, 1) HLA has less chance than a snowball in perdition to pass Congress and 38 states in the next 20 years at least; 2) a crusade to pass HLA will so mobilize pro-choice partisans that it will be impossible to shift the Supreme Court, thereby proving counterproductive.

One may have an argument for not pushing HLA hard right now due to pragmatic considerations. But to oppose HLA on principle due to one's overriding belief in federalism -- that is a terrible position for pro-lifers.

In order for HLA to become viable, we need the hearts and minds of Americans to be changed. We need someone who can communicate conservative pro-life principles to our country in a sincere and persuasive way. Reagan, the great communicator, started the conversation. Huckabee is also an impressive communicator who can follow Reagan's footsteps in convincing Americans that the unborn should be protected.

It won't do the movement any good to nominate someone who doesn't even believe that abortion is murder.

I assumed when you ask a Presidential candidate (who cannot vote on proposed amendments) whether he "supports" the HLA, your asking him whether his platform includes his exerting his bully pulpit and other influence to try to get Congress and 38 state legislatures to approve HLA. And for reasons like those above, which you rightly call pragmatic, I would not be in favor of trying to pass HLA, but would focus on appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and lower Federal courts - and would prefer that the President focus his energy likewise.

On the other hand, if you're talking philosophically, I'm not entirely sure what my position is regarding legislative/constitutional remedies, but I would 1) favor an approach that returns the decision to the states; and 2) continue to advocate against abortions and support alternatives (such as Crisis Pregnancy Centers). As a matter of legal principle, I would prefer reversing Roe v Wade at the Supreme Court level, to reverse its ability to be used as precedence for other cases, so as to strengthen conservative jurisprudence. I thus would support the intent of HLA amendments that return the power to the state (but disagree pragmatically with trying to pass it, as stated before). I am not in favor of banning abortion at the Federal level at this time.

Of the other candidates, I haven't been following this closely enough to know whether other candidates are in favor or oppose HLA on pragmatic grounds and/or on philosophical grounds.

And Rightly So!

Is that he supports the same constitutional right to privacy that gave us Roe v Wade in the first place. So he's at least as good on judges as the Democrats are.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

P.S. Reason #1 isn't
The president can't do a damn thing about it except appoint judges. With Huckabee we will get the sequels to Harriet Miers.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I don't care who you are.

Vote for Fred!

Abortion is killing the most innocent among us, is it not?

If I were in a burning building, and could either rescue a family of three or 30 frozen embryos, I'd rescue the family without little second thought.

I still think that producing embryos only to kill them is immoral.

I also think that killing a full-term baby in the womb is murder.

If Romney were just pandering to so-cons, he would say "of course abortion is murder" without hesitation. His position is evidence that he is a sincere pro-lifer, not pandering.

But I don't see any federal laws against murdering my neighbor. Why do we need federal laws against abortion? This is a states issue, it is not and never should have been a federal issue. This is why we are so adamant that the SCOTUS nominees be strict constuctionist, and not activists.

Of locking up any women who try to obtain an abortion for 20+ years? That's not exactly a recipe for electoral success, you know.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

One can characterize abortion as murder in the eyes of God and man. This is separate from the issue of determining any penalties for abortion.

Apparently there's SOME kind of difference between killing an 8 year old and killing a 5 day old embryo, or we would be willing to give each offender the same punishment.

Burkelurker's hypothetical is a good one. If your statement is true (no difference at all between murder and abortion), you should clearly save the 30 frozen embryos from being burned alive rather than the family of 3. I doubt any of us would choose to do that in real life, though. So there must be some kind of difference, eh?

Furthermore, I think the version of the HLA that extends 14th amendment rights to fetuses would demand we treat them the same. It would be a violation of their 14th amendment rights to have lesser penalties for killing a fetus than, say, an 8 year old girl. Just as it would be a violation of a black man's 14th amendment rights if we made murdering a black man a gross misdemeanor while killing a white man was still a capital offense.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

People subconsciously realize that not all those embryos will be viable (perhaps there is a probability of 0.1 that the embryo will be viable), and thus they factor this into their decision.

This does not detract from the assertion that abortion being murder.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

What if it was 100 embryos versus a family of 3? 500? 1000? Our decision is not based on some probability calculation that those of us who aren't doctors at a fertility clinic can't even make.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Your calculation implies that people only value embryos that are viable. That would mean that embryos only have value for what they may become, not for what they are. This is surely different from how we regard children. If a child has a terminal illness, and will not reach adulthood, we nevertheless value the life he has until then.

Also, as said above, if you change the numbers people would likely act the same. I imagine almost everyone would save the same family of three rather than 100 embryos, or 500.

I'm not implying anything about the intrinsic worth of the embryo. A person's goal may be to maximize the number of lives saved, and a probability of viability plays into that equation.

You are pitting life against life, and anytime that is done, the decision is hard.

People have a hard time associating a face to embryos and thus they are not as attached to them as to the family of 3.

But forget about pitting life vs. life. In most cases, abortions are done even when the mother's life isn't threatened.

This hypothetical does not damage my claim that abortion is murder. Most pro-lifers believe that. Ronald Reagan believed that and wrote extensively about his pro-life views. And Mike Huckabee believes that.

You said that someone might save a family of three rather than 30 embryos because they estimated the chances of viability of the embryos at 10%.

Your choice of 10% strongly suggests that the calculation you were making was "30 * .1 = 3" to match the numbers of my problem.

The implication of this calculation is that 10 embryos with a 10% viability rate are collectively worth one developed human life. This would only make sense if you assume that a viable embryo is worth a developed human life and an inviable embryo is worthless.

This means that you give no intrinsic value to embryonic life. At least, the way you instinctively addressed the hypothetical betrays that attitude.

Reason #1: There is a subconscious probability calculation of the embryo's viability factored in.

Reason #2: People are not as attached to face-less embryos than to the family of 3.

You are pitting life vs. life. In most abortions, this calculation doesn't even come into play. That situation is a red herring meant to distract from the issue of abortion.

Only by pitting life against life can we create some basis for comparison. The case of the burning building illustrates that the vast majority of people find a qualitative distinction between embryos and developed humans. Many of whom still believe that killing embryos is immoral. Profoundly immoral.

Reason #2 doesn't help. You don't need to see the family in the hypothetical to make the same choice. You might have to choose whether to run left or right in a hallway, knowing that the family is somewhere to the left, and the embryos somewhere to the right. You haven't seen the family at all when you're making the decision.

If you are in a burning hospital and you had a chance to save 3 100 year olds on critical life support or 3 babies, which would you choose? Regardless of your choice, the intrinsic value of each life is the same. One can construct endless hypotheticals.

But it does not detract from the fact that 99% of abortions do not have this dilemma of choosing life vs. life. And it does not dent the claim of many pro-lifers that abortion is murder.

Here is what Americans think (these numbers are suggestive of the pro-life/pro-choice divide):

* A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of January 1998 found that 48% thought of abortion as murder, while 45% did not.

* In the Los Angeles Times poll of June 2000, 57% agreed that "abortion is murder," while 36% disagreed.

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL06/pres.html

Remember, though, polls are passive, constrained, and multiple choice. If I were faced with those poll questions, I would probably answer "abortion is murder," too, because I wouldn't want to answer "abortion is not murder." As I said before, I think it is murder at least in some cases. The poll sounds like it's getting at pro-life vs. pro-choice, so I would answer what sounds more like the pro-life position.

However, I won't accept you or anyone else telling me that I'm not strongly pro-life just because I think calling abortion "murder" is an oversimplification, and sometimes inaccurate.

...first, to turn it back to you: would you make a "probability calc" on viability in your hospital hypothetical? No. Yet you did in the embryos hypothetical - and the precise way you did the calculation implies all that I outlined. Bringing up another hypothetical doesn't change that.

Second, I think a lot of people would respond to your hospital hypothetical with a flat-out: "yes, the babies' lives are more valuable, so I will save them." But those people would probably explain it in a quantitative way (how much of their lives they have left before them, how much happiness they have yet to experience), rather than a qualitative way, which is what is relevant to considering what sort of life may be "murdered."

how much of their lives they have left before them is the same in spirit as maximizing the number of lives saved (by doing an internal probability calc).

And even if one chooses one group to save over the other, it does not alter the intrinsic worth of each life. The arsonist would still be guilty for the deaths of the individuals.

It shows that they are different.

1) The calculation you made in the embryos hypothetical makes a bright-line distinction between whether they embryonic life will develop into a full human life or not. Embryonic life that doesn't make it to full human life is implicitly worth nothing in the calculations you made. That's a qualitative difference.

2) Embryos should get more importance if that hypothetical is the same as the old-person hypothetical, because embryos are even younger than fully-developed babies. But they instead get less.

...the # of human hours preserved. In attempting to maximize # of human hours preserved, people make an implicit judgement of the viability of the embryo just like they make a judgement of the continued viability of the 100 year old on critical life support. This is where they are similar.

...I don't think that's where you were going when you brought up your original "probability calc." I don't think you were looking at "human hours." I think you were making a qualitative distinction.

However, there's no way to prove that, so let's take a different path.

All the embryos will be viable, due to scientific advancement. It's true in fact, and more importantly, the person in the burning building believes that it's true. Who does the person save? 30 embryos (with, as a bonus, more life ahead of them) or the family of three?

...and we know that all 30 embryos will live productive lives if we only saved them from this burning building, it would make sense for the person to save the 30 embryos if the goal is to maximize lives (and human hours) saved. But even if the person saved the family, it still doesn't reduce the intrinsic worth of each embryo.

Merely no reason to believe otherwise. Just assuming that, in all likelihood, most or all of the embryos are viable, just as we would assume that no one in the family has a terminal illness.

And the choice a person makes doesn't "change" the worth of an embryo or the family. It signals moral instincts. And if you, I, and most other people would save the family, that signals a qualitative difference.

...and there are people who have already adopted each one, a person is justified to choose the 30 embryos over the 3 people. This is a difficult life vs. life decision which does not need to be made in 99% of abortions.

And it does not take away from the belief that abortion is murder. Romney is plainly out of touch with the views of pro-lifers.

And you are anonymous and aren't even running for office. So maybe you can understand why people would hesitate to equate abortion with murder, legally. These are the kinds of issues it brings up. Once you call abortion murder, you are equating viable embryos with kids and adults. By extension, the punishment should be identical as well. That's something you are never going to be able to sell to 99% of the population. Pro-lifers don't want to put mothers in prison for 25 to life.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Cartoons come to mind.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You are making a distinction. You are no longer saying that "abortion is murder." You are saying "abortion is murder in the eyes of God and and man." Precisely what you mean by that is immaterial; that you have to add a qualifying phrase to illustrate a distinction you make between the two demonstrates that even in your world-view, "abortion is murder" is not an unqualified truth.

Now, you may use the phrase "abortion is murder" as short way of saying "abortion is murder in the eyes of God and man." However, when someone else hears or says "abortion is murder," you cannot assume that they are implicitly adding the same qualifier.

If they are the same then the doctor who performs one single abortion should get life in prison just like the murderer of your spouse. In fact, that embryo could've been a police man, so that doctor should get the death penalty except in New Jersey. Any doctor performing more than one abortion should be charged with crimes against humanity.

I don't think America is ready to make that leap yet, nor do I believe that the correct leap to make. And yes, I am Pro-Life and I always have been.

Would she go to jail for hiring a hit?

.

So it is death row in most states, not prison time.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Separate the two issues.

I can't believe that not one person here has even a slightly negative view of Romney refusing to say that abortion is murder.

The characterization of abortion is a very fundamental issue.

The reason why most pro-lifers oppose abortion is because they believe that life begins at conception and to terminate that life is murder.

Anteater,

Apparently most do not believe this is a big issue. You do and that's fine. I am pro-life. You may argue that I am not because I believe a family should be able to make an abortion decision in the case of rape, incest or the life of the mother.

You may see me as a murderer since my wife had a molar pregnancy where most of the fetus died, but continued growing and would have resulted in great harm or death to my wife. She had to have an abortion for her health and I'm glad she and I could make that decision without feeling like we were murderers.

I have a special needs daughter and if she is raped, we have to make that decision if she can carry the baby full term. But she may not be able to safely due to her disabilities and in that case, I may push for an abortion after much prayer, counsel with doctors and my church etc.

I am Pro-Life, but I am not a murderer.

First, I am sincerely sorry to hear about your wife's molar pregnancy.

In both scenarios, one has to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the infant. This is a choice that I hope I will never face.

I am principally talking about the 95% of abortions where there are no such complications (threats to the mother's life). In my opinion, killing an innocent unborn child is murder because life and personhood begins at conception.

The crucial first step in advancing the pro-life movement is to correctly characterize abortion. Mitt Romney fails to take even that first step.

I agree that killing an innocent unborn child is murder when it's done to just get rid of the child. This is the majority of abortions and is very bad. My simple point is what my wife and I did was not murder or in my opinion manslaughter, but it was the exact same action as somebody who was pregnant for over three months. Thus, in my humble, but experienced opinion, I feel that it's not cut and dried died in the wool murder end of discussion.

Motivations in abortion matters, just like in the severity of killing a person. None of our folks coming back from Iraq are murderers, but patriotic soldiers that may have taken a life. A life taken in self defense is not murder. Thus, imho, making a candidate say "Yes, abortion is murder" is just a litmus test which makes a complicated matter over-simplified.

I can appreciate the points you've made on this issue, but I want a candidate that can appreciate the complicated issues I have faced to not over-simplify the discussion because it sounds right or applies to most of the cases.

ant

So as a pro-life supporter I'd like to ask you what you have done to support those unwed mothers who decide to not abort?

Have you supported an increase in funding to adoption agencies?

An increase in funding for prenatal health care for poor women?

Increases spending in education, job training, heathcare support, daycare and other support services that allows a young woman who is pregnant to have a real choice to make a life if she chooses to have and raise her child?

How about improving access to contraceptives for young people to prevent pregnancies?

How about increases in funding to go after the men who impregnate women to support their children?

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

So the answer is:

1) Taxpayer money
2) Taxpayer money for socialized medicine
3) Taxpayer money for something we already spend an insane amount of money on
4) Taxpayer money for people who think preventing pregnancy, herpes, or HIV isn't worth 30 cents (well, if it comes out of their own pocket)
5) Taxpayer money to collect money from guys who don't have any money?

Is there anything that more taxpayer money can't fix?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Private groups who counsel, offer pre-natal care, and provide alternative for women to not abort, adoption or raising their child, and tangible support for this decision. As well as sex education programs that go beyond techniques to the realities of relationships.

More government programs are not the solution; committed individuals working together are.

And Rightly So!

So, do Huck supporters actually think he can get the FMA passed or not? And if not, what does it matter whether someone supports it when only judges will have a real effect (on which he appears clueless).

...in another diary. This diary is about abortion.

I meant to say HLA. So, just flip FMA with HLA in the above post. Same questions (do you believe it can pass, etc.).

mea culpa.

I'll try not to threadjack. I know the HLA won't pass without serious tweaking. I'm not sure how the FMA is written right now, but I've read several times that over 60% of Americans do not go for gay marriage. I think if it's written well, then FMA-like amendment can pass with a hard fight.

AND 38 state legislatures have to pass it.

Hell will freeze over.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Forgive me if I believe Hell is experiencing Global Cooling. I was hoping to send Al down there to help out and spread the word. Maybe he'll stay.

I don't know all the details of the existing FMA. I know how hard it is to pass an amendment, but it can be done. And, with over 60% of Americans saying that gay marriage is not good, I think a hard battle can be won. Now, I do not recommend that the President try this immediately, but it would be nice to have at least one attempt at it in the next four years, even if we lose.

are Dems, and that 2/3 of both must vote for such an amendment, it don't have a prayer - I don't care what % of the American public wants it. Polls of the public are immaterial. What counts is who's in Congress. And right now, it ain't us.

But, I'm still sending Al down to Hell and you can't stop me!!

I know the HLA won't pass without serious tweaking.

It can't take any more tweaking or it will become totally meaningless. The latest version of the HLA (which went down in flames 25 years ago, by the way) simply states that the issue is to be left up to the states. It doesn't prohibit abortion. How are you going to tweak that to be any less controversial? This is a pipe dream. It is never going to happen.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

.

And the President has nothing to say about it even if it could. Huckabee knows all that. That's the beauty of it. He can build a platform filled with gimmicks like the FMA, HLA, and FairTax and he'll never have to deliver on it. It's not his fault... the stupid Congress and those stupid states wouldn't get behind his impossible plan.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

The National Right to Life Committee seemed to tacitly acknowledge that other Republican candidates -- such as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- have purer records on the subject in its endorsement, in which the group made a nod to Thompson's electability.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3858826

Second, the grassroots pro-lifers aren't following NRLC.

Funny, there is nothing in the actual endorsement that substantiates that claim.

http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/111307POTUSEndorsement.pdf

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Is opposition to illegal immigration actually considered a "socially conservative" position? Because I know the Catholic Church (my religion of choice) is very supportive of amnesty.

www.mikehuckabee.com

The immigration issue is orthogonal to social conservatism

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

It is a culture war issue, and the culture war has traditionally been the province of social conservatism.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Talk about schizophrenia! And yet that represents the majority of Americans on the issue of abortion. Most don't want abortion but they want it to be legal.

My girlbuddy Shelley is a good example. Anti-Abortion is her single issue when it comes to voting. However, when her girlfriend recently had an abortion because ultrasound revealed the fetus to have gross deformities, she accepted her friend's decision without judgement.

I am pro-life. I think it is a poor choice to kill a fetus that could be safely brought to term. I certainly don't see any reason the federal government ought to be involved in the killing of such an fetus. I also don't want the federal government, or any state government for that matter, to ever execute any prisoner - I refuse to accept a state right to make an irrevocable decision for which no amends can be made if the decision was in error.

I am pro-choice. I don't think abortion is a federal question at all. I don't think I have the right to impose by force my morality on a mother making such a difficult decision.

I tend to side philosophically with the pro-life side more than the pro-choice side advocacy wise becasue so few pro-choice advocates are willing to admit that a fetus is human.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

...stay tuned!

Attack any of my points.

Answer that and we can have a discussion. Until then, this is just mental masturbation. There are versions of the HLA that will outlaw abortion, all the way down to versions that will return the issue to states but cause no federal action on it.

What is he proposing?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

There are variations, but they are unified in the same goal of stating the fundamental right to life for each person.

Check out mbecker's diary. Most of them don't make any judgment about abortion and don't ban abortion at the Federal level.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Huckabee knows this thing has no chance of ever getting passed, so why should he waste his time figuring out which version he supports? And his followers have to know it has no chance of getting passed either, otherwise they would probably think to ask him which version he supports. It's just enough that he repeat the words.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

...but we are talking about the issue of abortion in this thread.

But abortion is probably the main issue in determining if one is conservative or not.

If you wanted to find out a person's political leanings and you could only ask that person about one issue, you would probably ask: "Are you pro-life or pro-choice?"

Others would disagree. I would probably ask something about the role of government, myself. There are pro-life liberals out there, you know.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

abortion is probably the main issue in determining if one is conservative or not.

In YOUR opinion.

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

"But abortion is probably the main issue in determining if one is conservative or not."

#1 - That is probably the worst definition of conservative I have ever heard

#2 - There is no functional difference on abortion between 4 of the major GOP candidates

#3 - Harry Reid is a conservative? See point #1.

Harry Reid voted so many times for pro-life positions. NARAL rates him at a 29%. Still a democrat, a liberal, but he does want to reduce abortions overall.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Harry_Reid_Abortion.htm

Doesn't change my voting at all, just kinda suprising.

Just because it is the most important issue to you doesn't mean it is the most important predictor of conservatism in general. I personally think a better question would be "do you believe government is a problem, or a solution?"

We know where the Huckster stands on that one.

I agree w/ your question....but the last line is the type of statement that is not helping your cause. Why don't you tell me if Huck views gov. as a problem or solution? Do we know where fred stands? (is he still in the race?) How about rudy? (isn't he the one that believes 'that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' EXCEPT if they live in a big city where violence is high?

My main point was that defining conservatism as being pro-life is not a great definition. Anyways, if you want a reply to the actual question I presented...

Yes, I believe that Huckabee has never found a problem that the government didn't have a solution to. I'm also not a giant Rudy fan, and I sure as heck won't disagree with your sentiments on his second amendment background.

I think we know where Fred stands. His entire campaign is built around federalism, which, from the point of view of someone running to head the federal government, means that he views the government as a problem, not a solution.

I have seen a poll before asking what were the most important political issues, and abortion came out on top. If someone can find a link to such a poll for me, that would be great.

Let me argue why abortion is the top issue for both Republicans and Democrats. What is the most hard-fought political battle over? It is over SCOTUS nominations. One of the President's most important responsibilities is to nominate good SCOTUS candidates. What is the single political issue that makes SCOTUS battles so fierce? Abortion.

Abortion is the all-important political issue that divides the right from the left.

It really is too bad for the left too. I've known too many country club Republicans who are pro-choice and are absically only fiscons. I've also known several socons who are either marginally fiscons or not at all. The fiscal libs could make an FDR style killing if they'd be willing to accept the pro-life position. As a fiscon, I don't know what I'd do if they did.

Here is your link. btw: abortion is not the most important issue.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/trust_im...

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I am 100% anti-abortion, except in the case of saving the mothers life and possibly for incest and rape. I think you need to be careful on defining abortion legally as murder; however I am no legal expert in this realm. If abortion is classified as murder would that then mean that a mother who has a miscarriage could be under investigation for murder, negligent homicide, or any other category similar to murder? What if she drank, or smoked? What if she was doing something risky like skiing and fell causing a miscarriage?

Then, would you also be opening the door to calling oral contraceptives murder, or something else criminal. I know that is kind of ridiculous but you can see the slippery slope.

Late-term abortion is an entirely different story.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

anything Huckabee proposes, or ANY version of the HLA, or overturning Roe will get us to a place where there is a federal statute that says abortion is murder. That would require a separate federal law & if you think the probability of passing an HLA is remote, the probability of passing a federal law defining abortion as murder makes the HLA look like a slam dunk.

In every permutation I've seen, the states get to define the punishment for the crime because it would clearly be a state crime NOT a federal crime.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Seems to me that's an opening for the courts to force the issue.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

abortion as "murder" and proscribing penalties.

I'm sure the lawyers here will correct me if I'm wrong, but there is generally no federal crime defined as "murder" with the exception of the assassination of the President and govt officials and deaths that are the result of a terrorist act. Other than those narrow exceptions, the act is a state crime and it is defined by the states.

I see no possibility of that happening - federal statute, that is.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Giving the unborn the protection of the 14th is all it would take to open the door.

Say a state makes the penalty for trying to obtain an abortion 6 months probation and a $200 fine. It seems to me the courts would easily (and rightly) call that a violation of the unborn child's 14th amendment rights. You have an equal protection problem with the disparate punishments. For the same reason you can't set the punishment for killing a black man less than that for killing a white man, you wouldn't be able to set the punishment for killing an unborn child less than that for killing an adult. The states would be in violation of the 14th if they did anything but treat abortion the same as murder. So a mother that tries to obtain an abortion goes to prison for 20 years. Either that, or we decide to let people off easy for solicitation to commit murder.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

And we've now gotten far enough down the slippery slope, I am forced to leave it to the lawyers.

Good point though.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Seems like at least a few people in Iowa are catching on.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Will McCain steal 3rd in Iowa? That could be huge for him.