Thompson on Human Life Amendment: Wrong
Federalism works in most cases -- but not this one
By Ericka Andersen Posted in 2008 — Comments (137) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Fred Thompson is keeping up with the game as best he can, but not supporting a Human Life amendment could create a huge gash in his conservative platform. On Meet the Press this weekend, Tim Russert read from a report Thompson wrote in 1994. In it, Thompson said he didn’t know if he believed life began at conception.
Thompson mended that statement yesterday, saying now he does know that life begins at conception, referencing his 4-year-old daughter’s sonogram as part of the reason he changed his mind.
However, his belief that life begins at conception means that life in the womb is as abundant and real and valuable as yours and mine. If that is the case, such life should be protected equally. By rejecting a Human Life Amendment, Thompson, by default, places the life of the unborn child on a different level. He essentially says that child is not as worthy of protection as a child one hour out of the womb.
Go below to see the video and more commentary
After attending the Values Voters conference recently and hearing the intense and unrelenting devotion attendees and most speakers had towards the pro-life movement, it’s obvious this will hurt Thompson’s standing significantly among values voters. And this segment can truly sway the results for a Republican nomination.
Will Thompson later will come to realize that human life must be protected at every stage – just like he realized such life does begin at conception? I consider myself a Federalist and believe small, local government is the most efficient way to work but we’re not talking about taxes or education here – we’re talking about life. However impractical it might seem to outlaw abortion completely, it is the only acceptable answer if one truly believes that our lives begin at day 1.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Senate RePork Card Arrives — Comments (2) »
Thompson on Human Life Amendment: Wrong 137 Comments (0 topical, 137 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The man makes it clear that he does not want to jail young, foolish mothers who go and have abortions.
Or, restating it from the life-begins-at-conception standpoint,
[Fred Thompson] makes it clear that he does not want to jail young, foolish mothers who assist in the murder of their children.
Suddenly sounds like a very fishy position to take...
If we passed the amendment, then someone, somewhere would eventually sue for the civil rights of the unborn, when these mothers keep getting off scot-free when conspiring with these abortionists to commit abortion.
Is there any other situation in which it is just to let a person who assists in the murder of someone else to escape punishment for their crime? What would be unjust about holding mothers to the same standard as any other accomplice to murder?
... the way the law and politics work would lead us to arrest mothers who have abortions.
Again, restating:
... the way the law and politics work would lead us to arrest mothers who are accomplices to murder.
Suddenly becomes a remarkably bland and obvious statement that probably wouldn't shock anyone.
No, the idea of jailing people who have abortions is not a remarkably bland and obvious statement that probably wouldn't shock anyine, because the sentiments in this country run strongly against that statement.
Right or wrong, you have to do more than re-frame it to convince anyone that arresting women who have abortions is the right thing to do.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I agree that the majority of citizens in this country don't believe that a mother who aborts should be indicted for murder or at minimum as an accomplice to murder. In my opinion that has to do with the prevailing belief that abortion is not murder and not on a belief that accomplices to murder should be given free passes depending on the circumstances of their crime.
Right or wrong, you have to do more than re-frame it to convince anyone that arresting women who have abortions is the right thing to do.
Either abortion is murder, or it isn't.
If it is murder then it would be an abrogation of justice to not hold an accomplice to murder under the same jeopardy and subject to the same punishment as accomplices in other situations. You're free to construct a consistent theory of justice under which we would let mothers who partitipate in murder get away with no responsibility but where we do convict and sentence another participant in the same murder.
If it isn't murder then you have to come up with some other reason to arrest physicians who perform abortions. I'm not sure what the crime would be - perhaps an example of a medical procedure that is currently illegal to perform even in cases where the patient has fully consented and no other crime (such as murder) is relevant. To my knowledge, even elective surgical amputation is not illegal, though it may be difficult to find a physician who will consent to provide such a service. Or do you want to try and convict physicians on the basis of the commerce clause? What about physicians who abort pro-bono?
You know, you don't have to equate abortion with murder to be opposed to abortion on demand. You seem to be claiming that the only crime we're allowed to arrest people for is murder, but that's not so.
Pre-roe we managed to have abortion be illegal without calling it murder, and post-roe we'll be able to do the same.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
If abortion isn't murder then for what rational reason would you be opposed to it? And for what compelling reason should everyone else accept your personal opposition and extend that to a state-wide ban on something that - in the absence of murder - is merely a medical procedure no different than an appendicectomy or liposuction?
Or to put it another way, if no murder takes place during an abortion, then please explain for what crime you would like the State to convict one of the two parties who are complicit to the act. Further explain why you think the State is not obligated to pursue both of the complicit parties, but must only indict one while allowing the other to go consequence-free?
Murder is the most serious crime we have on the books. There are LOTS of crimes that don't meet that standard, yet we still prosecute anyway.
Abortion just need to re-take its place alongside Manslaughter and Murder as crimes involving people getting killed.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I'm fine with calling it manslaughter if that is the consensus agreement. Given that, there is still no just reason that an accomplice to manslaughter shouldn't also be prosecuted to the same extent as anywhere else.
In other words:
... the way the law and politics work would lead us to arrest mothers who are accomplices to manslaughter.
If we write the new abortion laws in such a manner as to exclude laying on a table and letting it be done, then we don't have to.
If we aren't Constitutionally mandated to treat the unborn precisely the same as the born, we get that political leeway.
Now look, don't get me wrong. You don't have to sell me on the viewpoint here. Personally, I think the only coherent positions on abortion are to allow it on demand, or to allow it only to save the life of the mother.
But those two positions along omit a great many voters. You've got people who would ban it except for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother, you've got people who would ban it after the first trimester except to save the mother's life, and all sorts of other combinations.
The only way we put together a pro-life majority in this country, is to let in a certain amount of political leeway. And Fred's objection is part of it.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
If we write the new abortion laws in such a manner as to exclude laying on a table and letting it be done, then we don't have to.
That's my point - why would you do that? The only reason I can think of is that you aren't willing to put your money where your beliefs are and call a spade a spade, and govern accordingly. I'm not sure what's conservative about obfuscating your beliefs and principles and putting forth a policy that's clearly askew with justice. When you strip away equivocation over "murder" versus "manslaughter" versus "abortion" you're back where you started, which is telling me that you'll punish one complicit and premeditating party of a heinous criminal act but not the other - and that you'll do this evidently because you aren't able to convince a majority of citizens to agree with your actual belief that is driving your policy.
If we aren't Constitutionally mandated to treat the unborn precisely the same as the born, we get that political leeway.
If "the unborn" are living human beings, what Constitutional interpretation are you applying to adduce that they are not already entitled to precisely the same rights afforded other Americans? And that depriving them of said rights (i.e. life) shouldn't be regarded as an equal offense when committed against any other American?
If "the unborn" aren't living human beings, then I don't see a lot of hope that more Americans will conclude that abortion should be banned.
The only way we put together a pro-life majority in this country ...
I'm coming to believe the only way to achieve a pro-life majority will be to convince more people that abortion is murder because life begins at conception.
What you're suggesting is that we convince people to agree that the government can outlaw certain medical procedures so long as the majority votes in sufficient legislators to pass such bills. It doesn't require a pro-life belief, it only requires a belief in majority rule and a willingness to accept arbitrary government regulations in matters where there is no actual interest in justice.
This argument is just one huge false dichotomy. We don't treat all killing the same, either by statute or in actual practice.
If you kill a cop, you might get the chair instead of life. If you kill a pimp or a drug dealer and you'll get off easier than if you killed a housewife or a minister. If you kill somebody that asked you to, you will certainly get off easier than if you kill some random stranger because you thought it would make for a good time. You take revenge on the man who murdered your family and they'll probably offer you a sweet deal because there's a good chance the jury won't vote to convict at all. If you are young or mentally ill, you might get off without any kind of prison sentence at all.
We don't have one single punishment we apply to everyone who kills somebody, hires someone to kill somebody, or participates in the killing of somebody. We don't have to. Just because someone involved in the killing doesn't go to prison for the rest of their life or get executed by the state, that doesn't make the victim any less human.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Suggest for us what you feel are just punishments regarding the to-be-made-unlawful termination of an unborn child for the physician that willfully performs the abortion and for the mother who willfully and with premeditated intent contracts with the physician, remits payment, and presents herself with the unborn child in her care for the termination.
You'll be hard pressed to convince me that the physician is the more culpable of the two parties, but I wont bet against it. However, I'll be mighty impressed if you can convince me that the mother bears no responsibility whatsoever for the to-be-criminalized activity.
At any rate, it is fascinating to see some people here taking the position that, on the scales of justice, abortion is not equivalent to premeditated murder, and a mother who aborts is not at least as morally culpable and deserving of equivalent punishment for her actions as a mother who pays someone else to murder her 2 week old baby.
That you are just trolling here, because I know you aren't that thick.
Neil has been talking about the political reality of the situation... and he happens to be right. In the real world, we are not going to lock up women who attempt to get an abortion for life without parole. We are not going to send them to the electric chair. And we certainly don't have to, because society can assign whatever punishment they want to the crime.
The fact that there probably won't be strict criminal penalties for the mother doesn't all the sudden turn abortion into a harmless elective surgical procedure that society has no business interfering with. The only fascinating thing here is you seem to think it does.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
In the real world, we are not going to lock up women who attempt to get an abortion for life without parole.
Why not? It appears to me that you and Neil are willing to subjugate justice strictly for political expediency. Are you willing to let a mother get off free for paying someone to murder her two week old baby? What's the difference between that and a mother who aborts at 8 months? Your only response thus far boils down to, well, we'll just pretend there is a difference because we can. Bravo!
Smells like the strong odor of moral relativism to me. You can bandy on about trolling if you want but neither of you have presented any conservative rationale behind the idea of punishing physicians but not other willful participants for the to-be-criminalized act of abortion. In fact, your position turns the concept of blind justice on its head by completely ignoring the moral culpability of the mother (and father, and perhaps other involved participants). And by propagating such a position, it seems to me that you will also propagate a consensus in the general public that you don't actually believe the unborn are fully human and whose lives are equally valuable and that society will punish those who unjustly deprive them of it.
Which speaks to my observation that while you and Neil seem to think this approach is the one that will ultimately end abortions, I suspect it will actually do very little to convince additional citizens that the practice should be banned, and may even be counterproductive as people examine the glaring inconsistency in your application of justice to this situation.
Now you're just being dense. It's a matter of life and death, literally, that we build a winning anti-abortion majority as soon as possible. The babies who don't die aren't going to mind if we cut a few corners.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Which, given your position, equates to not holding mothers who willfully participate in the unlawful termination of their unborn child culpable for their crime. Nicely spun!
To cut to the chase, what you're telling us is that you don't believe you can convince a majority of American citizens that abortion is a crime equivalent to murder or manslaughter and adjudicate accordingly. Because evidently you believe the idea of sending mothers who are complicit in the murder/slaughter their children to jail will be just too much for Americans to take.
I'm more than happy for you to take your position on the road and achieve success. Count me very doubtful however: if you've already retreated from what I always believed the fundamental pro-life positions to be, that life begins at conception and that aborton is tantamount to murder, then I don't think you've got a very strong basis for your argument, even while I don't wish you ill will for it.
Did we send women to jail for getting abortions pre-Roe, when mass abortion wasn't happening in this country?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Roe came down mid-January... the whole year of 1973 was post-Roe save the first two weeks.
Abortions grew 25% in that first year, then, by 160,000. The next year they grew by another 154,000.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
The reason we might want to do it, is to be able to cobble together a solid majority of support for getting that kind of drastic reduction of abortion in America!
Even if you believe there's injustice in letting the mothers go free, if we had to do it in order to get a law that let us jail abortionists and put Planned Parenthood out of business, then that would be worth it to most in the pro-life movement, I think.
And why CAN'T the government outlaw certain medical procedures? According to the law as it stands today, that's precisely how the PBA ban is defined. Who cares? If it saves a few hundred babies from a horrible, painful death, then that's good for everyone.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Even if you believe there's injustice in letting the mothers go free ...
Even if??? So you don't believe that a mother who aborts is complicit in the murder of an unborn person and deserves commensurate punishment? What about a mother who pays someone else to terminate her 2 week old baby? What's the difference? Time is all it takes to make one act heinous and worthy of prosecution and the other is just something we'll ignore?
And why CAN'T the government outlaw certain medical procedures?
The government can, but shouldn't. I don't see anything "conservative" about unnecessary regulations, do you? Now of course if you assert that abortion is an affront to justice in the same ballpark as murder then criminalizing abortion becomes a necessity in a country that respects justice, but likewise the punishment of those persons complicit in said criminal activity becomes a necessity - physician, mother, father, and so on as the circumstances merit.
If you're not going to assert that abortion is tantamount to murder, or manslaughter, and adjudicate accordingly, on what grounds are you going to forge the majority you're after? How will you convince those persons currently unopposed to abortion to switch sides? Taking a position that demonstrates you believe that abortion isn't murder or manslaughter but is still sort of bad in a vague way that doesn't require society to punish persons who procure abortions doesn't sound like a very convincing course of action to me, but YMMV.
As I understand the argument, a fully realized human life begins at conception. That life is equal to a post birth life in all respects.
Inexorably it flows:
1. Willfully ending that life is murder.
2. Criminalizing that act as less than premeditated murder would undervalue the life. That is, classifying abortion as less than premediated murder means life does not fully and completely begin at conception.
3. All parties to premeditated murder should be held accountable under the law. The father who pays for the 'hit', the family that drives the get-away car, the killer, and the mother who facilitates the crime.
4. Under federal law (18 U.S.C.4) anyone with knowledge of the crime who fails to report it to prosecutors is guilty of a crime. I would assume that means family and ministers should properly be prosecuted.
5. Civil penalties would apply as well. A father could sue the mother and all parties for his loss.
I'm afraid we can't have it both ways. If it's murder, it's murder in the first degree.
For these, and so many other reasons, many conservatives who find abortion reprehensible urge that we act carefully.
As for your last point, I 100% oppose a federal abortion ban. I want STATE abortion bans, the same way we have other state criminal laws.
So the limits of the Federal government are utterly irrelevant.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
People going to pro-abortion states from pro-life states to kill their babies. Planned Parenthood offices would be setup on the border of pro-life states and in Indian reservations within pro-life states. It would have a minimal effect of stopping abortions on the margins.
But I guess it would make you feel better.
???WhoamI????
Although laws don't make people do things, making it illegal in some places will have an effect on the debate. Further, even if someone can go to another state, by making it more difficult, it gives them a chance to reconsider.
This battle will be won in hearts and minds. A necessary first step is to remove Roe V. Wade so that the default answer is no longer to kill.
Because people will just go to Canada or Mexico or France to get abortions if it was legal throughout the entire United States, right? Planned Parenthood would just set up clinics right by the border and major airports.
The fact is that reducing availability will have a *major* impact on the number of abortions performed. A number of states will ban it entirely and most of the rest will put restrictions on it. That will have a significant impact, not a "minimal effect." Even if it had a "minimal effect," is it still not a good thing? How many babies do we have to be talking about to make it worth our effort?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Well said, Ericka.
--------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.
I have never squared his stance on this or the Marriage Amendment. It seems to me, the amendment process is explicitly pro-states, since almost all of them have to approve for anything to get implemented into the Constitution. Isn't that exactly what Thompson wants? For the states to take their stand? The amendment process is an entirely legal piece of our constitutional framework. It's a very state-heavy means of change, which shouldn't surprise, since states' rights was a key factor in the founding of the constitution.
Just don't see it Thompson.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Does Thompson understand what federalism is really about? I originally thought his federalist rhetoric was his best point, but now it looks more like a cop-out for when he wants to escape a conservative position.
A lot of regulations and programs are truly local and contained in the state. Those should be left to the state. Some laws are not amenable to a state-by-state solution. Abortion and marriage are two of those.
Under a abortion-permissive "federalist" system, a mother can easily evade the law by visiting a neighboring state. Under a liberal marriage "federalist" system, people can get married in a neighboring state. And no matter how you propose to treat them once they re-enter a traditional-family state, you've got a huge mess (marriage should not disappear and reappear as you cross state lines, and cannot without undermining a stable conception of family).
it really isn't germane to this topic. Once an abortion is performed, there is no question of whether or not another state has to recognize it--it's done and can't be undone. With gay marriage, a couple can go to a state that allows that, but when they go back to their home state that doesn't, that home state doesn't have to recognize it or grant it the benefits that traditional marriage is allowed. Two totally different situations.
Pass all the amendments and laws you like, if you are able, but human behavior will continue to be what it is and women who choose to get an abortion will continue to do so. They did so when it was previously illegal, remember? For me, life begins at conception, no qualifiers. To get an abortion is to take a life, no qualifiers. No government should be funding it or making it easier to get one. Having said that, I tend to agree with Fred Thompson because I think these kinds of issues should devolve back to the states to decide.
The marriage issue is germane, because the abortion issue sheds light on Thompson's misunderstanding/abuse of federalism, which in turn is further revealed by the marriage issue. But no need to discuss it if you don't want to.
To the abortion issue. It doesn't matter whether an abortion can be undone or not. It's that we want to punish the abortionist, not the mother. So theft is a good crime to leave to the states, because every state suffers local consequences if it fails to punish it. Abortion isn't a good crime to leave entirely to the states, because a state that decides to allow abortionists allows unborn children in the neighboring states to be killed.
"Pass all the amendments and laws you like, if you are able, but human behavior will continue to be what it is and women who choose to get an abortion will continue to do so. They did so when it was previously illegal, remember?"
Oh, you're pro-choice. And you support Thompson's position on abortion. That clears things up.
Janis will be back (perhaps) to fend for herself, but she is anything but pro-choice...the reality that people find ways around inconvenient legal truths is the point here and mangling that into some attempt to suggest she and Thompson are pro-choice because he doesn't see the merits of a Constitutional amendment is just way out in left field.
I happen to agree with him(Fred), while I disagree with him re: Marriage amendment... those who know me would never accuse me of being pro-choice for feeling that way on the legal merits of an amendment on these two issues.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
"Anti-Roe" doesn't mean "pro-life," despite the long convergence of the two terms. Janis is anti-Roe, but her comment pretty strongly implied a pro-choice position.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
I am 56 years old and well remember when abortion was illegal nationwide. If I had friends when I was a teenager who got one, I never knew about it, but there were always stories about girls who got a D & C because their dr. determined that it was the treatment of choice for some unspecified ailment.
My point about this from the get-go is that society itself is the problem. We do not sanctify life anymore than we sanctify the family or traditional marriage. And we do not obey God either--and that is the real problem underneath all of this. I'm not saying not to try to make abortion illegal, I'm just saying the obvious truth: Making it illegal will not stop it. As with Prohibition and the War on Drugs, it will give rise to another set of illegal and dangerous choices for girls or women who are determined to do this.
That abortions did *not* increase drastically immediately after Roe v. Wade, then you need to re-check your history. Ditto with other human behaviors made illegal generally.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
that making abortions illegal would have no effect on women who wanted to get abortions - they'd still have them. To be sure, *some* would still have them, but *a whole lot less* - and we're not talking about "Rudy reduced the incidence of abortion by 10% over 8 years" less, we're talking there'd be a tiny fraction of what there are today. The "historical facts" back me up on this.
If you *weren't* trying to make that point, but rather that *some* people will break the law no matter how you write it - well, I guess you're correct, just like some people break the law against murder, stealing, etc. but nobody advances that as a reason that we shouldn't have laws against murder, stealing, etc.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
But this argument is a pro-choice argument. In fact, it's probably the number-one pro-choice argument:
"Pass all the amendments and laws you like, if you are able, but human behavior will continue to be what it is and women who choose to get an abortion will continue to do so. They did so when it was previously illegal, remember?"
Do you also subscribe to that argument, haystack?
People do what people do. Those who want a thing bad enough are not deterred by laws...if human behavior was effectively controlled by laws there'd be no theft, murder, or speeding violations. If a person wants an abortion bad enough they will get an abortion. This is not a pro-choice bumper sticker.
Laws can make people think long and hard before they consciously choose to violate them, but thinking and doing are often not one and the same. Your mistake in putting me in your tidy little box is your assertion that just because the pro-abortionists suggest we may as well make it legal and fund it and control it within the medical profession so as to make it safe... is somehow the same as an anti-abortionist saying people are going to do it anyway and a Constitutional amendment is not the way to make it stop. To then overlay that logic into re-naming us pro-choicers is ridiculous.
I am against abortion, and I have stated in this forum on more than one occasion that I would be perfectly fine with it being treated no differently than murder, and if it appeases the majority of Americans to include some access to the procedures in the best interests of the health of the mother I have suggested it be treated as justifiable homicide...that gets pre-approval from the courts. Note to burkelurker...we don't have a constitutional ban on murder, and making it illegal in each of the 50 states with the varied statutes addressing what said state wants to mete out as the appropriate punishment for said crime has, thus far, worked just dandy thank you very much.
Some people may think I am nuts, but no one has accused me of being pro-choice lately...not that I give a flip about convincing you one way or the other. MY point here is simple-people who disagree with an amendment remedy are not therefore pro-choice.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
If you argue against abortion laws because "people will do what they want anyway," you're making a pro-choice argument.
I have not said that anyone who disagrees with an amendment remedy must be pro-choice. I did say that janis made a pro-choice argument against the amendment.
And I didn't put you in any "tidy little box." I asked you a question which you never answered directly.
I said this:
If a person wants an abortion bad enough they will get an abortion.
To your silly little yardstick, that would make me pro-choice.
I defy you to 'splain to me and our readers, given my history here, under what circumstances you could make me out to be pro-choice.
Waiting.....
ps-If you like, I'll help you along: Yes-I espouse Janis' statement. Again, define me as pro-choice.
Still waiting....
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Saying this: "If a person wants an abortion bad enough they will get an abortion" does not necessarily make a person pro-choice.
Giving that as a reason to oppose legislation against abortion does make a person pro-choice.
saying that as a means to argue against such a measure at the Federal level does not make a person pro-choice.
Are we splitting brown hairs here or blonde ones?
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
And the reasoning behind the argument itself has nothing to do with the level at which it is applied (state or federal). Using that argument to oppose a federal restriction on abortion is incoherent if you're going to reject precisely the same argument at the state level.
So, I apologize. Maybe janis and you aren't pro-choice. You could be entirely incoherent instead.
An elected official says the Federal illegal immigration laws are bad, so they are not worth enforcing. Does that make this person pro-illegal immigration?
To suggest that a person who believes federal-level laws are inappropriate in a given circumstance because of the inherent flaws of a Federal bureaucracy, but adds that state laws MIGHT be a more effective way to address the fundamental underlying problem is somehow pro-choice is just a person who likes sounding right with no concept of what they are talking about....
Be careful where you go next big boy-I'm willing to debate an issue, but I'll not take kindly to being called incoherent again-it gets personal next.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
"because of the inherent flaws of a Federal bureaucracy"
Oops. That's not the argument that I called pro-choice (although I've got to say, this new argument is incoherent, since we're talking about a constitutional amendment that would effectively set a floor on the state abortion laws, and would require no "federal bureaucracy"). The argument was not that there are inherent flaws in a federal bureaucracy. The argument that I called pro-choice was that people will do what they want to (abort babies) even where the behavior is proscribed. That argument makes zero distinction between federal and state enforcement.
Thanks in advance.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
non-productive to have every syllable one utters be parsed to death for hidden meanings, contentions, assertions ad infinitum.
He and I and like-minded others here have posted our positions here as plainly as possible for the reasons listed and stayed civil about it.
No amount of brow-beating is going to change those positions. Please stop ascribing meaning beyond what is plainly stated.
As simply as I can reiterate, my belief in this is:
Life begins at conception.
Abortion is not a solution for birth control. It is the taking of innocent life to excuse lack of self-control or poor judgement, at least in this circumstance.
Abortion as a means to save the mother's life, that should be up to the mother, father and dr. And I hope I personally never have to witness or hear about such a situation as it would be gut and heart wrenching to contemplate.
Roe v. Wade should be overturned. There should be no federal jurisdiction over this. It should be turned over to the states to decide. Period.
A poll today by AP (IPSOS) stated that those polled about whether or not the recent decision of school districts in this country to give condoms and birth control pills to 11 and 12 year old kids in middle school was a good idea or bad idea. The results? 62% thought it was the smart thing to do. The takeaway from that?
A moral culture that liberal and lax will never get a majority of people to pass the HLA amendment. But it can certainly be handled at the state level.
Do you understand that we all basically agree on the fact that abortion is bad and we would all do away with it entirely if we could? In the meantime, I will do what I can to elect the
person who my conscience says I most can live with--same as you.
P.S.--And Haystack, I thank you for your gracious defense of my statements. You, sir, are a gentleman and a man of great common sense--no small thing, that.
Your new explanation of your position no longer includes the pro-choice argument. But your new explanation does not line up with Thompson's explanation. You do not feel it necessary to actively support an HLA amendment because you think it would be a political non-starter. That's understandable. Thompson opposes it because he thinks an HLA amendment would be harmful. I'm more interested in why Thompson opposes it, than the bare fact that he opposes it.
He's right. It Would be harmful. And a political nonstarter, to boot.
Thompson is pushing Federalism in all his policy positions. And, since it is not a duty spelled out in the Constitution, it Should be a State issue. Making it into an amendment takes it away from the States...
Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."
been the truth from time immemorial. There have always been those who have chosen to abort their pregnancies and always been those who have aided in that. That is a statement of fact and history as well. Thompson's position on abortion is that he thinks life begins at conception, as do I. He doesn't want the government to fund it or put their seal of approval on it. He wants to see Roe overturned. Me, too, it's bad law. He is not pro-choice, nor has he ever been, unlike Mitt Romney.
Read what I say, burkelurker, and not what you want to read into it to bolster your position and your candidate.
"Pass all the amendments and laws you like, if you are able, but human behavior will continue to be what it is and women who choose to get an abortion will continue to do so. They did so when it was previously illegal, remember?"
I won't comment further, though, unless you have any questions. I'll let your words stand for themselves.
But my comment was not about the Marriage Amendment. In fact, I just tacked it onto the first sentence to make a larger point: I don't understand Fred's inability to square the amendment process with a pro-states's rights mentality. It seems to me that in both the HLA and the FMA, states would have amble chance to say where they stand.
States rights are not about having the oppuruntunity to say where they stand and then have to abide by the will of other states (even if it is a mjority of them) but rather to allow each state to makes its own choices for its residents.
total obscurity. It won't come even CLOSE to passing and by being defeated across the board - as in no chance in the Senate, no chance in the House, no chance at the State level - the pro-abortion folk will use it's defeat to reinforce the concept that abortion is not just a constitutional right, it's an entitlement.
Combine making an issue of this with refusing to vote for Rudy over Hillary (if he's the nominee) and the SoCon hard core will set the pro-life movement back to 1973 - losing support on the Court and making complete fools of themselves in political realm.
And they'll call it a "moral victory". Sheesh.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
It's been offered in some variant for thirty-odd years, and yet the pro-life movement has seen remarkable gains in that time. I don't think it's nearly likely it becomes law any time soon, but I don't think it's existence or its consideration will have a different effect than it has the last three decades.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I would tend to quibble about whether it's been "offered". It's certainly been part of the Party Platform and I would say it's been as routinely ignored as probably 75% of the rest of the Platform.
I would also note that, IMLTHO, the gains made by the pro-life movement - which are very real - are indeed remarkable and have nothing to do with the HLA. My poorly made point was based on reading into Ericka's story something to the effect that adpotion of the HLA should be a priority for the R candidate in this cycle. I would view that as a major change since no previous candidate has made it a campaign issue and no R POTUS has made it a priority.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
What the 2006 Elections did to the Rabid AntiWar crowd...
Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."
with you that life should be protected from day one, but Sen Thompson is just stating that right now we can't get a Constitutional Amendment to do that, so he's not pandering. He wants to overturn Roe and return abortion to the states where it could be debated and truly decided. Now, if he gets the nomination, I don't want this idea to be removed from our Party's Platform; instead, we need to reword this and say we stand for life and believe it begins at conception and that we want the overturn of Roe. He could even call for funding of Ultrasound equipment for all crisis pregancy clincs. To be for an Amendment that has no chance of passings is just pandering. And don't we all hate it when the Democrates do that!
"Sen Thompson is just stating that right now we can't get a Constitutional Amendment to do that, so he's not pandering. He wants to overturn Roe and return abortion to the states where it could be debated and truly decided"...
First, I haven't heard Thompson say the reason why he doesn't support a HLA is because it can't pass. If that's the case, I don't trust him because he simply won't support something because it won't pass. Does he not have the balls to stand for his principles?
Second, Overturn Roe: He hasn't said "I want Roe V. Wade to be overturned". I haven't heard it. I've seen him dance the issue like he does here, but no real red meat. Plus, if Roe V. Wade is overturned we'll simply be where we are at now in relation to marriage. No true definition, cross-state chaos pertaining to licensing and even divorce.
Third, Returning Abortion to the states so it can be debated or decided. Is this not what the Constitutional Amendment Process does? 75% of the States must ratify an amendment for it to pass.
Are we afraid to stand for our principles because the pro-abortion folk will stand for theirs? If so, that's weak, cheap and a 100% cop-out. If you feel life begins at conception, then do something about it.
of doing something about it, but what? The HLA will not pass. The occasional attempt is merely a hush puppy thrown to pro-lifers every so often.
Fred is not the most pro-life candidate one could wish for. The questions then are: Is he good enough? Can we do better?
In the first place, the big roadblock right now is Roe. Consider Fred's opposition to that, his strong beliefs in federalism, and his determination to avoid public financing of abortion. I think that qualifies.
In the second place, the only candidates that are significantly better are Huckabee and Hunter. Huckabee has major problems on other issues. Hunter is not campaigning well. I can understand support for either, but I see no reason for pro-lifers to abandon Fred in droves.
...the only candidates that are significantly better are Huckabee and Hunter.
I don't disagree that they may have "stronger" positions on the issue, the real question is so what. I would posit that it makes no difference if one has a "stronger" position than Fred (or Rudy for that matter) because the President can't do more than Fred, etal have all committed to do... And that would be nominate "conservative" judges and leave the existing administrative things (Mexico City, etc) in place.
I suppose you can make the "bully pulpit" argument, but I don't know that that really buys much.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
However impractical it might seem to outlaw abortion completely, it is the only acceptable answer if one truly believes that our lives begin at day 1.
That's the only philosophically acceptable answer, I agree. That's not the only politically acceptable answer, and there's no justification for assuming that pro-lifers who argue for incrementalist gains as a political matter are being inconsistent.
When it comes to candidates who currently support the HLA, we're basically left with Huckabee right now.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
abortion will be stopped. The political will does not exist to pass the HLA today any more than when it was first conceived. Pushing it and losing badly will do significant harm to the pro-life movement. And it would lose badly - much more so that the general sentiment about abortion in the population as a whole.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
On Thompson's part: you're absolutely right. He took months trying to decide to run. He's decided to run and won't take a stand for anything. It's easy to say "there's a problem, it should be addressed", which is Thompson's response for everything.
Really standing for something, advocating your principles and standing by them with real proposals is something that's seriously lacking in the Thompson Campaign.
Because I've been following this thread and I'd really like to know:
What do you think the President's role in abortion legislation really is? He can say he'll sign the legislation if it passes, or is it something else? Get up on the bully pulpit each weekend and talk about how Congress needs to pass anti-abortion laws? Fly around the country and meet with governors to twist their arms about getting pro-life statutes enacted?
What precisely is the President's role, here?
...abwsolutely none. The President has absolutely NO POWERS concerning the Ammendment process. He cannot sign nor veto it and has to live with it if passed. All he can do is talk about it.
Dear heavens! Could it be that we can now start a sentence with "Back in 1994..." in reference to someone other than Romney? Looks like we're going to have to give Thompson the benefit of the doubt too. I know I am.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
The ammendment you speak of has 0 chance of becoming a constitutional ammendent (short of a literal act of God and in that case it won't matter what FDT thinks).
There is no way that this would pass the states.
If this really is a problem for my fellow so-cons, then they are much less strategic than I think they are.
Disclaimer: Backing Fred!
Oz
Read my most recent story, "Immigration may be Hillary's undoing" on First Cut Politics
when you feel like you've been fighting the same fight for over thirty years. If you were a 20-year old Christian conservative in 1973, then you're now 54 and you've been fighting against Roe v. Wade for most of your life. If you're under 40, then you've been living under Roe for as long as you can remember. For a lot of so-cons the abortion war has been too long, the casualties too high, and a clear victory is sorely needed.
Thinking strategically is good, but you've got to understand there's a lot of folks that are at the end of their rope.
On the morale of the pro-life movement. I would argue the opposite for those who hope to be "strategic." Pro-Life Voters tend to be straight ticket Republicans if we can mobilize them to vote. They can only be mobilized by a strong and articulate message.
In 2004, this message was very strongly about placing pro-life individuals on the Supreme Court. 2 new justices later and no change. The message needs to show some progress, some change, needs to be brash and offensive.
The Republican Candidate needs to step out and say "This is wrong, I will take a major stand against Abortion... Here's my plan."
We can be sure, no matter what, the Democrats, Liberals and Planned Parenthood supporters will do everything to revv up their supporters. Conservatives who care about the issue of life will be attacked left and right by these lunatics and it will be much appreciated if we had someone in our corner running for President
Who here has "always" been 100% sure that life begins @ conception, before implantation into the uterus? I for one am not 100% sure that life does begin @ conception - however, I err on the side of caution.
Would it be better to push for a HLA or would it be better to get rid of the bad law that is Roe v. Wade & get the question back to the states. Are we wanting to be ideologically pure or do we want to get the results of fewer babies being aborted? If we want more babies not aborted, holding out for the perfection of HLA is not a very smart way to go...
Yes, I do support Fred but will speak up when I thnk there's a problem (campaign finance reform, for example)...
is that
o He believes the R vs. W was badly decided and should be overturned.
o He has consistently voted pro-life (100% rating), and will continue to do so, when it comes to life questions at the federal level.
o He is pro-life and this was reinforced in his heart when he saw his daughter's ultrasound 4-5 years back (or so)
o He believes that a constitutional amendment will not pass and that he cannot change the hearts and minds of people supporting "choice"
What Fred can do is make progress.
He will appoint strict constructionist judges.
He will work to overturn R vs. W.
He will sign into law pro-life bills at the federal level (remember his 100% pro-life record)
He has the chance to make significant progress where others will try to get work on an amendment that will not pass 2/3 Congress and 3/4 of the states. AND we can trust him on this because we know what his core beliefs are and we have proof that he has a consistent voting record supporting life.
This is such a bad move for Fred. First it was the Federal Marriage Amendment, and now it's the Human Life Amendment. There is no way that staunch pro-lifers can back Fred after the position he has just taken, especially when there is another viable candidate that supports the Human Life Amendment.
I now extend a peaceful olive branch to former FredHeads who want to support a pro-life candidate. Huckabee express is about to take off, and there is room for new supporters!
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
But when the people whose top issue is cutting spending vote for Giuliani, they're just doing the same thing.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Sorry, I'd only go for a FC and SC and would never join with Huckabee. My second choice would be either McCain or Romney. Never Huck. Good luck though.
until he's out of office or he drops out of this race. ;) He is the only one that truly motivates me to be a part of this process. I could only enthusiastically support him, and no one else.
I've seen his record. Not a chance in the world he's getting this SC/FC to vote for him. Have YOU read through his entire record? I have a hard time believing anyone that is a SC/FC would be supporting him. Particularly on immigration/taxes/spending/leadership. Huck is no Reagan my friend. Good luck!
of course you see this as a way to get more support for your guy.
The underlying problem here that is not being addressed is that you CANNOT expect to keep on legislating morality and get successful results. It is the equivalent of banning all talk of moral behavior and ethics in your home and then setting down all kinds of rules for your teenagers to keep them from doing things you think are wrong.
You teach moral behavior and how to make ethical decisions from the get-go. And that's what's missing from our society today. We keep trying to insist on our standards from the top down instead of doing the long hard job of getting rid of the destructive policies that have devastated the past strength of families and churches in our public life.
Moral relativism, political correctness, the falseness of "separation of church and state"--these are all the things that must be struck down before human behaviour will change for the better.
FRAMING doesn't win the day. PERSUASION does.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Sometimes framing misleads, and sometimes it makes the truth clear. In either case, it is about persuasion.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
consider abortion to be morally wrong, do you not? For the same reason that others want the Marriage Amendment--because they consider anything other than traditional marriage--one man, one woman--to be morally wrong.
Legislating morality didn't work for Prohibition, hasn't worked for the War on Drugs too well, and it is not some magic wand that will work for abortion or gay marriage either. Overturn Roe and let it be decided by individual states. You want an abortion? Then go to whatever state allows it and pay the costs yourself. And that includes the cost that your conscience charges you, not to mention having to answer to your Maker someday.
Passing another law won't stop people from doing as they wish. Elevating the concept of the sanctity of life back to where it used to be in my lifetime would take care of a lot of this. That doesn't start in a legislature of some kind--it starts at home.
I want laws against murder because I consider murder to be morally wrong. I want laws against theft because I consider theft to be morally wrong. I want laws against assault and batter because I consider assault and battery to be morally wrong. So I'm kind of wondering what your point is, since the relevant question is not whether the base of a given law is moral in nature (almost all malum in se criminal laws fall into this category), but rather whether the given law a) promotes a legitimate governmental objective and b) is within the effective reach of state enforcement. Historically, there has been no contention that the protection of innocent life satisfies both criteria, and indeed is the most basic function of government.
By the way, you should really do some actual research into whether or not prohibition "worked," at least as far as "worked" is defined as "reduced the consumption of alcohol." You'll be surprised.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
this issue on both sides of the divide, it does, in the end, boil down to basic morality: Do you believe that life is sacrosanct? My answer is yes, unequivocally.
Yes, I want my government to protect innocent life. But I don't want some huge federal government mandating every detail of my life. I have said that this should be a state issue. The bottom line here is that this is a hugely divisive issue because it is so emotional and it will not be easily solved, if ever, by an amendment, new set of laws with enforcement, etc.
As to Prohibition, as with the War on Drugs, passing a law to forbid drinking may have cut down on consumption temporarily, but it also gave rise to bootlegging and that gave the Mafia a really good foothold in America. And the amendment was repealed. And, before anyone suggests as much, I am not for legalizing drugs.
If you are going to enter the race as the social conservative's alternative, then be that alternative. Otherwise, stop wasting my freakin' time.
--------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.
I don't think he was in to be the religious right's alternative. That's Huckabee; if you want that, support him, heh.
Fred's in here to be the fusion right alternative, as far as I can tell.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
But the subtext of and rationale for his entry into the race was that he was the so-con alternative for the evangelicals who were initially nervous about Romney. Now that Romney's made a lot of them feel more comfortable, and Huckabee has come on the stage (for those few who still have qualms about Romney or like the so-con/economic populist mix), Thompson has exhaled all the air back into the room.
Romney is the total conservative candidate. Thompson has (so far) failed to successfully challenge him for that position.
If the people who drafted FDT into the race just wanted someone to oppose Giuliani on abortion, they'd just have been supporting Romney, or the other Thompson, or Gilmore, or Brownback, or Huckabee, or any of those guys.
No, Thompson was brought into the race for the whole package, not just one issue.
If some people thought he was going to be the new Abortion Canddiate, then they were sadly misinformed.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
First, obviously the people who put his campaign together didn't just want an issue candidate like Brownback. I'm talking about a strategy for putting together a candidate to win the primary.
Yes, they brought Thompson in as "the total conservative." However, note that Romney was already running as the total conservative (and had more leadership experience and intelligence than Thompson). So why an alternative? Because they thought evangelicals might defect from Romney (because of his abortion position change, and because they thought the Mormon thing might become a big deal). So Thompson runs as a total conservative, but the so-cons are the reason for his entry. The idea is that the so-cons defect from Romney, and the rest will follow.
Thompson seemed to have some success with his initial buzz, but that has largely deflated. He still would have to take the so-cons to prompt a massive defection to him. But he's not getting the so-con endorsements; Romney is. His big so-con early state is now giving him a tepid reception. His reason for entering the race is evaporating fast.
That's what I mean by subtext.
Maybe some people thought that way, but it never crossed my mind. My problems with Romney are different from that, heh.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Obviously, individuals are a lot more varied in their reasoning and preferences than the overall trends and strategies can indicate.
with this statement. I've been part of the draft movement since March of this year. I'm supporting Fred for more than just a single issue or even any 2-3 issues. He can get this stuff done and his proposals and ideals are the closest in-line with my own. He is the consistent conservative that I've been looking for for some time (sorry GWB, but it's just true).
he wasn't yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
Not fair?
If one needed something change and you had 2 options - State vs Goverment. Where do you think you would have a better chance of getting something passed? I don't know about everyone else on RS but I personally feel that it can be done at the State level much easier than at the Federal Goverment level. The wheels tend to move faster in the states and you have less road kill than you do at the Federal level and Fred knows this. So Fred say's, Let's get good judges on the courts. Let's overturn Roe v Wade and let's get the grassroot movement going at the state level. Fred and I want to win..WE really don't care how. I have no influence in Mass., Vermont, NH or Maine but I darn got some say as to what happens here in Tennessee.
I wonder if Thompson would have supported the 13th Amendment at the time of its ratification? Should we leave it to the states to decide whether slavery is acceptable? Hard to believe Thompson would make that "federalism" argument.
Before the civil war, support for an anti-slavery amendment would have been a radical, fringe position.
You want to fight a war, literally, over abortion? That's what it'll take for this issue, too, to get the kind of total victory anti-slavery people got.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I wouldn't want to fight a civil war, that's for sure. But I think it was right to pass the 13th amendment and I think it would be right to pass a life amendment. If we can't protect life what good are we?
The 13th amendment was passed at gunpoint, more or less. I don't see us passing a right to live amendment over the objections of the coasts with any less. Not in my lifetime anyway.
Look, I don't want to discourage you from having a high ideal. I have high ideals too, heh. But don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, by opposing anyone who rejects the all-or-nothing approach, and instead is an ALLY of yours on an incremental approach.
Sheesh, if I rejected any candidate for office who wasn't going to cut 1.5 trillion dollars from the budget immediately, I'd never vote Republican.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
If I understand things correctly, murder is a state issue--it is not tried in Federal courts.
Why should abortion be handled there?
the Federal government does not dictate to the states what murder is. They happen to have more or less agreed on what it is.
Fred's point is that it is up to the states to handle issues like this. My basic question is why does this particular issue trump the Constitution?
I am pro-life. But I want those battles in the states, where I think we can manage this quite well.
But murder and abortion are different. People don't go to the states in which murderers reside in order to be murdered. Murder is a local affair, and all states have a fundamental local interest in preventing it to preserve the order. Consequently, all states have murder laws.
Under a federalist abortion system, mothers who want abortions will go to other states to have their unborn children killed. It does not disrupt the order of the state that harbors the abortionists. However, it does result in the termination of a life that resided in a state which wishes to protect that life.
The Federal government has the Constitutional right to regulate interstate abortions! This could include forcing enforcing of the laws of the state of residence. Within a state the right is based on?
Is it when the doctor stands on one side of the state line and the woman on the other?
But seriously, I'm not sure this is a viable option - it would be like the federal government stepping in to prevent someone from goign outside of his state to buy liquor on Sunday. First, it would be a terrible burden on DOJ to keep an eye on all abortion providers for any out of state patients and on the federal court system to have to handle the prosecutions.
Second, it would raise up all sorts of intra-state conflicts that could end as ugly as the civil war.
Third, it would seem to be a stretch fo an already absurdly stretched interstate commerce clause.
Stake out bus stations and Interstate highways leaving the a pro-life state to a pro-abortion state asking if a child bearing age women is pregnant?
Then are you going to prosecute her when she returns to your state if you believe she had an abortion in the pro-abortion state.
That is pretty unrealistic. We cannot even stop teenagers from going around parental notification laws across state lines now.
???WhoamI????
I'm sure if you asked Sen Thompson why he doesn't support the HLA, he'd say it can't pass right now. He also mentioned not putting young girls in jail for abortions. He wants Roe overturned; that is where to begin. We must return it to the states to be debated and decided. Don't you remember last Nov one of the South Dakota voted on ending abortion in all cases except where the mom's life was at risk; it lost 56 to 44. Folks I live in Alabama and South Dakota is almost as red. If it couldn't pass there, then we don't have the votes. We must pursue a course of overturning Roe and bring it back to the states where we must engage the public. Right now, we're screaming for the Federal gov or Judical Branch to solve this. Folks, only reaching people and convicing them that a child is a gift from God and not their own property to be disposed of will bring about a permament end to this abomination. It took a Civil War to bring an end to Slavery; I'd hate to think we'd need to go that route again. Why not try, Federalism first?
How many years did it take Wilberforce to engage Parliment before that body listened to his petition? We must engage the hearts and minds of the public. Once it returns to the states, state goverments will pass laws or offer referemdums for the people to vote. Are we going to be prepared for the results? Are we going to like some of the results? I didn't like South Dakota's result last year. I'm asking those who support the HLA; if Roe is overturned and some states ban abortion, while others do not, what are we prepared to do as a nation?
through the force of law. You are absolutely right that the change has to happen in individuals and in communities. If the Federal government or all state governments were to make abortion illegal tomorrow, we would not reduce the rate of abortions. You would only reduce the rate of legal abortions. The only way to reduce and eliminate abortions is to convince people that abortion should not be used as a form of contraception. Young people need to have respect for themselves and others so that they don't get unintentionally pregnant in the first place. Young people need common sense and age-appropriate sex education emphasizing abstinence but also a thorough understanding of contraception. Finally, our society needs to have a support system for children including adoption services, early childhood healthcare and daycare for young mothers so that children are not seen as a burden. Finally, we need to teach our boys about responsibility so that they know exactly what the consequence of a sexual relationship are and teach them to take responsibility for any children that they father.
Sometimes it is underestimated how much impact the Supreme Court's decision in Roe V. Wade has had on even the debate of this topic. Like it or not, the perception of people, and what is taught in schools is that the right to murder your unborn child is enshrined in the constitution and is the law of the land.
Remove RvW, and the debate immediately shifts. We are no longer discussing removing a "constitutional right", and the debate can proceed to focus more on the realities of abortion. I am as pro-life as they come, I knew Randall Terry back in the day, and I have marched outside of many an abortion mill. That said, a national law banning abortions is not going to happen, and is inconsistent with Federalism.
Just because something is good or bad doesn't mean it should be supported or banned by the federal government. I'm with Fred on this one.
I see "so cons should vote for X" and "all others should vote for Y" type of comments and I looked up and down and found even Brownback mentioned when he's not even running anymore. Why doesn't anyone mention Hunter? Am I missing something? Does he suck for some reason? From what very little I've seen, he seems like the "so cons" answer and he doesn't seem that bad on most anything else. Is it just a name recognition prob?
I understand, but I don't, the want and need for more and more amendments. For a group of people that believe the Constitution is the foundation and not "a living document" there seems to be a lot desire to make changes to it.
There are already 27 amendments. I figure we need the first 10 and maybe one or two others. the rest are just bloat.
We need to work to have existing laws reflect that the killing of unborn children is illegal. The same goes for marriage laws.
Think 10th Amendment.
R.J.
The living Constitution is a doctrine that says the words of the document don't matter so much as what the judges think the spirit of the document is, nad how they think that spirit applies to modern issues.
THAT is what we oppose. These judges amend the constitution on their own.
Doing the proper amendment process is PRECISELY the opposite of the living constitution, not the same as it.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
The whole reason the pro-choice folks federalized the issue is because they couldn't win at the state level. Send abortion as well as a whole ton of other issues back to the states. Let California choose it's path while North Carolina chooses it's own. Given time we will find out whose right.
pro-life states to pro-abortion states with clinics setup on the borders and on Indian Reservations within pro-life states. Planned Parenthood will have organized bus trips to clinics on a daily basis to "help" women in pro-life states kill their babies.
National mail-order pharmacists would overnight baby killing drugs into pro-life states on-demand.
Would change very little on a practical basis. But the pro-life states could feel good about their politicians that they are now pro-life again.
???WhoamI????
All we need is official, Federal recognition that, as of conception, there is life.
At that point, all existing laws apply to the fetus.
Now, if you're talking about an amendment (I haven't seen the suggested one, mind) that gives us said official recognition, then, sure. OK. Makes sense.
I don't agree with either position, personally, but you should stay consistent to internal logic, you know.
--------------------------------
Oh, just as an aside, if the Federal Government does take this as the official position, then how long do you think it'll take "Fetus Insurance" to hit the market?
Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."
So some of you think Federalism is good, except when it goes against what you believe and then you want the Federal governments involvement. Hum. Abortion should be back at the State and local level. As much as I dislike Fred (i helped on his '94 campaign), he is slowly regaining my vote.
1) Something that doesn't and will never have the votes required to get out of Congress
2) Something that doesn't and will never have the votes in 38 state legislatures to be ratified
3) Something that the President cannot veto or sign anyway
It is foolish to get distracted by things that cannot be done instead of focusing on what can be done. The constitutional right to abortion on demand *can* be thrown out and the issue returned to the states. That is possible. Lets focus on what is possible, instead of silly distractions like this. This is just counterproductive.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
...as his reasons that are revealing. He opposes the Amendment not because he thinks it is impractical, but because he thinks it would be a bad thing. When he talks about what "pro-life" means he emphasizes not funding abortions. He talks about prohibiting abortion with distaste, as it interferes with others' beliefs and judgments (i.e., their choice). This is centrist-liberal talk.
Is it so hard to go right to Fred's website where (unlike a lot of other candidates)he has clear statements of his positions?
For example:
Appointing Judges Faithful To Our Constitution
Activist judges across the country seem intent on legislating from the bench to promote a culture of abortion, redefine marriage, and undermine families—in effect re-shaping the values of our entire society without the consent of the people. We need judges who recognize their role in our democracy is to interpret, not make, the law. I am committed to:
Appointing strict constructionist judges who will interpret the law, not impose their views on us by legislating from the bench.
Traditional American Values
Protecting Life
Fred Thompson is pro-life. He believes in the sanctity of human life and that every life is worthy of respect. He had a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate and believes Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that ought to be overturned. He consistently opposed federal funding to promote or pay for abortion and supported the Partial Birth Abortion Act, the Child Custody Protection Act, and President Reagan’s “Mexico City†policy. While Fred Thompson supports adult stem cell research, he opposes embryonic stem cell research. He also opposes human cloning.
Supporting Marriage
Fred Thompson believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that this institution is the foundation of society. As such, he supported the Defense of Marriage Act when he served in the Senate. He supports a constitutional amendment to prevent activist judges from misreading the Constitution to force same-sex marriage on any state and on our society.
Protecting our Kids
While censorship is dangerous, obscenity is not legally protected, and laws against it should be vigorously enforced. Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer. And we must do all we can to fight the explosion of child pornography over the Internet.
Limiting the Role of the Judiciary
For many years, the judiciary has been too eager to engage in social engineering under the guise of interpreting the Constitution. Fred Thompson is a lawyer who understands the difference between interpreting the law and making it. He is committed to appointing judges who understand and respect that difference and who will only interpret and apply the law, not make it. When President Bush needed someone to shepherd the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States, he turned to Fred Thompson, who steered the Roberts nomination to its successful confirmation. John Roberts represents the kind of judges Fred Thompson would seek to appoint as President.
I got the above in 30 seconds. Since Fred does put clear statements of his positions right out where they can be easily accessed, why not go there? It makes the arguments more fun.
Trying each day to spread the Gospel
Continuation from this
Did we send women to jail for getting abortions pre-Roe, when mass abortion wasn't happening in this country?
If we weren't, can't you make the argument that our inconsistent stand regarding the injustice of abortion and the just punishment of those complict in the act enabled a cultural shift to acceptance of abortion rather than rejection? It seems to me if we didn't punish mothers who abort, then we demonstrated that as a society we didn't believe terminating one's own child was an unjust action. It should be no surprise that the majority today do not support criminalizing abortion, should it?
I'm told that 35 states recognize the concept of "fetal homicide", e.g.:
Alabama: Legislation taking effect July 1, 2006 (HB 19) amended Section 13A-6-1 of the Code of Alabama to include "an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability" as a "person" and "human being" for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault.
<...>
Arizona: The "unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development" is fully covered by the state's murder and manslaughter statutes.
<...>
Missouri: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is involuntary manslaughter or first degree murder.
<...>
Pennsylvania: An individual commits criminal homicide in the first, second, or third-degree, or voluntary manslaughter of an "unborn child" if the individual intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of an unborn child. ... On December 27, 2006, in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Bullock (J-43-2006), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously rejected an array of constitutional challenges to the law, including claims based on Roe v. Wade and equal protection doctrine.
<...>
Utah: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is treated as any other homicide. Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-201 et seq. (Supp. 1998)and UT SB 178 (2002).
So if you're suggesting that modern jurisprudence regarding the culpability of accomplices to abortion ought to be guided by practices prior to 1973, then I wonder whether you feel these recent fetal homicide laws are bad legislation that should never have been passed and ought to be overturned, since we weren't charging people with homicide for fetal death back then either?
If on the other hand you agree that fetal homicide laws uphold our nation's principle of justice and that cases like these are proper rulings:
California's Supreme Court has upheld and given a broad reading to the state's fetal homicide law. In a 6-1 ruling, the court decided that the law applies even if the assailant did not know a woman is pregnant.
<...>
Justice Janice Rogers Brown wrote in the ruling that by shooting Fansler, Taylor acted with a "conscious disregard for all life, fetal or otherwise." Brown further wrote, "Had one of Fansler's other children died during the defendant's assault, there would be no inquiry into whether the defendant knew the child was present for implied malice murder liability to attach."
... then I'd still very much like to hear what conservative principle or theory of justice leads you to assert that we ought not punish a mother who knowingly and deliberately engages in a course of action that results in the termination of her fetal child with a greater degree of premeditation and criminal intent than persons currently being charged with murder or homicide for unintentionally killing a fetus as a result of DUI.
If conception is to be considered the legal point at which life begins and that life is then recognized legally under our Constitution then this would raise a magnitude of legislation that I am not sure we are prepared to face.
As stated above termination of a fetal child would be considered murder. But what about more benign situations.
Immediately after conception could people claim the fetal child as a dependant on their taxes?
Would mothers be arrested for drinking or smoking while pregnant as that certainly endagers the fetal child? Could a state's Department of Social Services impose curvues and monitoring of women who might be putting their fetal children at risk?
Would the fetal children be counted in the Census for the purpose of apportioning the United States House of Representatives?
Has there been any considerations on these topics or others aside from the abortion = murder scenerios?
The man makes it clear that he does not want to jail young, foolish mothers who go and have abortions. But if we were to pass a human life amendment, it would be inevitable that we started jailing the mothers, not just the abortionists.
If we passed the amendment, then someone, somewhere would eventually sue for the civil rights of the unborn, when these mothers keep getting off scot-free when conspiring with these abortionists to commit abortion.
And just like we do arrest the 'users' of other criminals, such as the customers of prostitutes, or the buyers of crack, the way the law and politics work would lead us to arrest mothers who have abortions.
And Fred thinks that would be bad policy, so he opposes the amendment. Disagree with him if you will, but I don't think he's wrong to predict those consequences.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.