That Fred Thompson claims to be pro-life but would leave the abortion decision to individual states really angers me. This is actually a pro-abortion position, simply "pro-choice" in a different arena.
Professor Hadley Arkes, crafter of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, has written an article for the December issue of First Things that could be carved up and served for discussion in many areas, which I just may do.
In the following section, he discusses the similarites between Stephen Douglas' pro-slavery position and Rudy Giuliani's pro-abortion position. But I see Fred Thompson's name next to Giuliani's every time.
As I was preparing photos for this post, I discovered something bizarre. Douglas and Thompson even look alike:
Here's what Arkes said....
During the famous debate between Lincoln and Douglas, Douglas professed to be neutral on the matter of slavery. He professed to have reached no moral judgment. And so, he concluded, people should be free in the separate territories to vote slavery up or down. But, as Lincoln pointed out, he had indeed reached a moral judgment. If he had regarded slavery as a wrong - as Douglas had regarded polygamy - he would have understood that a wrong is that which no one ought to do, that anyone may be properly restrained from doing. To say slavery is something legitimate to choose is to say that slavery stood in the class of things "not wrong."In an eerie echo, Giuliani reproduced precisely the same argument in an interview with Charlie Rose. Rose asked, "Don't you think that abortion is a national issue?" Giuliani replied:
Sure it's a national issue. But... since it's an issue of conscience for people, a deep personal issue where some people morally believe it's wrong and some people strongly morally believe it's right. My conclusion about that is that government can't dictate and intervene and make that choice....Honestly, I think - my own personal view is it's better off if that is left to people to choose. And then what you do is you do everything you can to correctly limit the number of abortions, encourage adoption instead of abortion. I supported the ban on partial-birth abortion when it passed and when - and the decision of the Supreme Court I agree with. I agree with parental notification, but ultimately I think this is not the area where government should be completely dictating.
Lincoln said that Douglas was trying to "blow out the moral lights" among us by teaching a policy of "indifference" - that slavery just did not matter enough to stir such divisions in the country.
In a similar way, Giuliani is teaching us, in the style of Douglas, that we should not care overly much, that we should treat as a matter of indifference a right to take a human life for wholly private reasons that need not rise beyond convenience....
Fred Thompson holds basically the same view of abortion as Rudy Giuliani. They are both pro-adoption, anti-pba, pro-parental notification, and pro-strict constrictionist judges. They both say they don't like abortion, even "hate" it.
The only area where they disagree is which governmental entity should be responsible for its legality.
Comments:
Ha! Jill, they do look alike...
Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 4:46 PMI know! Weird, huh?
Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 21, 2007 5:07 PMWell put Jill. I would feel a lot better if Thompson would say abortion is murder at one point, at least.
Posted by: Nathan Will Sheets at November 21, 2007 5:10 PMThe reality is that there is zero chance of getting a Human Life Amendment through the Senate, much less getting 2/3 of the States to ratify it *if the States themselves are not already doing it.* Please read up on how the 13th and 14th were ratified: the Legislators from the Southern States were not allowed to participate.
I believe we are much more likely to overturn Roe now than we have been at any time since 1973, while still ending up with restrictions in at least as many States as we had then.
For one thing, we have ultrasounds now. In addition, many minds were changed - are still being changed - by the debate over partial birth abortion.
I also believe that a pro-life Congress could restrict the Courts from interfering with the States' legislative actions on abortion, tomorrow, on the grounds that it's obvious that the unborn are persons.
Part of my optimism comes from the ruling today by the Texas Court of Appeals to uphold the conviction of a man for killing a pregnant woman under our Prenatal Protection Act.
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/HTMLOPINIONINFO.ASP?OPINIONID=16213
The Court decision plainly states:
"By expressly defining capital murder such that one of the victims may be any unborn child from fertilization throughout all stages of gestation, the statute leaves no ambiguity as to what conduct is proscribed. In particular, the plain language of the statute prohibits the intentional or knowing killing of any unborn human, regardless of age. No ordinary person reading the statute would have any doubt as to whether it encompasses victims at all stages of gestation."
I think Stephen Douglas and Fred Thompson are the same guy.
Have YOU ever seen them together?
Jill,
You're right, they do look alike...and if you take Douglas' upper lip and lift it just enough to show some teeth...I think he'll look like Guiliani!!!
Beverly,
I agree. It is very odd that when it comes to the murder of a pregnant woman, it is the only time court's view the baby as a person. I remember reading a comment that one lady wrote on a blog about a month ago, that if a pregnant woman was on her way to a clinic to get an abortion, but was hit & killed by a drunk driver on the way, the drunk driver could be convicted of double homicide or manslaughter.
Seems like they are really making progress in the right direction in Texas. "Everything is bigger in Texas"...including thier morals! Hopefully it's a "baby step" in the right direction for the rest of the states!
Dr. Nuckols,
That's great news.
Now, if we can just add Drs. Hodari and Haskell on the convicted list...
I wonder what the reaction from the pro choice heavy hitter gang is to that ruling?
Posted by: carder at November 21, 2007 8:00 PMCarder,
do you really? It will be interesting to hear their argument, though!
Thank you, Beverly.
Posted by: heather at November 21, 2007 8:07 PMThe reality is that there is zero chance of getting a Human Life Amendment through the Senate, much less getting 2/3 of the States to ratify it *if the States themselves are not already doing it.* Please read up on how the 13th and 14th were ratified: the Legislators from the Southern States were not allowed to participate.
I believe we are much more likely to overturn Roe now than we have been at any time since 1973, while still ending up with restrictions in at least as many States as we had then.
For one thing, we have ultrasounds now. In addition, many minds were changed - are still being changed - by the debate over partial birth abortion.
I also believe that a pro-life Congress could restrict the Courts from interfering with the States' legislative actions on abortion, tomorrow, on the grounds that it's obvious that the unborn are persons.
Part of my optimism comes from the ruling today by the Texas Court of Appeals to uphold the conviction of a man for killing a pregnant woman under our Prenatal Protection Act.
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/HTMLOPINIONINFO.ASP?OPINIONID=16213
The Court decision plainly states:
"By expressly defining capital murder such that one of the victims may be any unborn child from fertilization throughout all stages of gestation, the statute leaves no ambiguity as to what conduct is proscribed. In particular, the plain language of the statute prohibits the intentional or knowing killing of any unborn human, regardless of age. No ordinary person reading the statute would have any doubt as to whether it encompasses victims at all stages of gestation."
Posted by: Beverly Nuckols, MD at November 21, 2007 6:09 PM
............................
I wonder if the man would have been charged with murder if he had simply caused a miscarriage. Something tells me no.
Posted by: Sally at November 21, 2007 8:08 PMSally, why was Scott Peterson charged with 2 counts of murder?
Posted by: heather at November 21, 2007 8:15 PMSally,
Nothing simple about a miscarriage. That being said, I'm sure he would have to do something pretty devastating to cause one...what could he possibly do other than "murder" to cause a child to die?
I think that a lot of women would be jealous of Stevie-boy's eyelashes and eyebrows.
Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 10:03 PMIt is encouraging to read Dr. Nuckols' optimism. We have made progress on the political front, but Hillary's dictat will be evidenced from day one should she be elected. Universal access to abortion on demand will be the centerpeice of her administration's so-called "health care" proposals. That and free contraception to all courtesy of federally mandated laws forcing private insurers to provide such. Obama may or may not be any better, but he doesn't seem to know what he believes in.
Posted by: Jerry Nickels at November 21, 2007 11:14 PMJerry,
Obama sure didn't have a problem prompting ...oops...I mean promoting the opening of Planned Parenthood, Aurora!
gotta laugh at the picture...there IS a resemblance!!! Too funny!
Posted by: AB Laura at November 21, 2007 11:33 PMActually, there was a young man convicted for causing the still birth of his girlfriend's twins. At first, she said that she wanted him to beat her so that she'd miscarry. The DA correctly noted that the law excused her and a doctor performing a legal medical procedure (there was no way we'd have gotten the law passed, otherwise) but not what amounted to an illegal abortion. It turns out that he was abusive, and not-bright enough to continue to abuse and threaten her -- by letter, no less -- from the jail.
Here's Jill's blog post about the trial,
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2005/06/abortionist_con.html
But here's a copy of a Fort Worth Star Telegram article (it's not on the newpaper's website any more) that tells the rest of the story
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1425638/posts
"That Fred Thompson claims to be pro-life but would leave the abortion decision to individual states really angers me. "
and me too. Leaving it to the states is a cop out and cowardly.
Posted by: jasper at November 22, 2007 8:36 AMLOL that picture is pretty hilarious.
Also, Thompson probably honestly feels he is pro-life in some respects. Like pro-lifers he wants to repeal Roe v Wade which would leave it to the states. Although, I'd like to ban such murder and leave the jurisdiction/prison regulations/etc to the states, just like the murder of other people. He just needs to be educated about that, but his positions on a lot of other things don't say much either.
"That Fred Thompson claims to be pro-life but would leave the abortion decision to individual states really angers me. "
and me too. Leaving it to the states is a cop out and cowardly.
Posted by: jasper at November 22, 2007 8:36 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jasper,
The next Republican debate is on Wednesday, November 28th. It's a CNN/You Tube debate, so most or all of the questions will be submitted by the public. Why don't you submit a question that will force the big hitters to state their true position on abortion, or give a lesser-known candidate a chance to express his position?
http://www.youtube.com/republicandebatesplash
ashotbrlj yejsrmiuq yxon goazn krgpijbdq qrap srkp
Posted by: qmynvbl jqcw at December 4, 2007 2:19 AMaipojr gwac vjcpoue ybqshturc brusjtiy dxhnw icvzyewk http://www.ixqly.lebjios.com
Posted by: ogjfbyiu wgqs at December 4, 2007 2:20 AMNice site. Thank you!!!
http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=freechristmaswa christmas wallpaper
Very good site. Thanks:-)
http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=giftideas christmas gift ideas
Nice site. Thank you!!!
http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=christmaswreath christmas wreaths
Very good site. Thank you!!!
http://www.mfipb.com/?mforum=christmasgiftsf christmas gifts for men