Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ivon Denosovich, Nov 12, 2007.
With this point of interest:
Allowing states to slaughter unborn children is not a prolife position.
True, but not banning abortion anywhere is even less pro-life. If it's any consolation, Thompson would like to universally end it.
I am not sure that he would like to universally end it as he opposes a constitutional amendment. Those two ideas are in conflict with each other.
Ain't gonna happen. [sic]
I agree with you. This is essentially the same position that Congressman Ron Paul takes, as you know.
Part of the trouble is that there is a division over making an exception for rape and incest. This has blunted the pro-life movement's effect. I do not look for a compromise within the pro-life movement and I do not look for a constitutional amendment within my lifetime. However, I am opposed to allowing large states such as New York, Illinois, and California to say to the rest of us that they will continue abortion under the guise of states rights and that they will do all of the abortions for the rest of the nation--which is more or less what Thompson and Paul suggest should happen in reality, which they dodge.
This issue could defeat the GOP against Hillary, and the GOP would deserve to be defeated over this issue. Reagan showed them the way to political victory after making many mistakes himself and if they abandon the Reagan plank of 1980 and since, they abandon Reaganism. Afterall, the Democrats stand on a plank of pro-choice.
I find it interesting that this is one of the very few issues, that Liberals want in the name of States rights. Otherwise, they want the federal govt to control?:BangHead:
I thought you were supporting Thompson?
Thanks, Dagwood. I was until Ken alerted me to his states rights position on abortion. That backed me off. I have officially unleaned towards Thompson, and I am not leaning towards anyone at the moment. Whoever wins the GOP nomination is going to have to promise to support the constitutional amendment to protect human life to win my support in the general election. I don't see how we can fall back on states rights when we know that the big states will continue to murder the unborn, do you?
All Thompson and Paul will have achieved is to have moved the geographical location of the abortion clinics. Indiana may be able to muster enough votes to end the practice in Indiana, but it would merely mean that the woman would go to Chicago or Detroit as it is unlikely that Illinois and Michigan, for example, would end abortion in their states. What do you think, Dagwood?
I did not know you had reevaluated Thompson's position, thanks for clarifying the situation.
I personally do not like abortion, but this issue is not a top concern for me. Other issues, like the war in Iraq, health care and the economy are more important to me.
I think, constitutionally the issue should be handled by the states, but realistically I don't think we will ever see an end to abortion in this country.
The real problem is the desire for women to have abortions for birth control. As long as this is the case they will continue to exist.
I would assume this is the result of Thompson being one of the few top tier candidate with a nearly spotless pro-life voting record.
Technically, Paul and Thompson have much different voting records on abortion. Thompson receives high marks and endorsements from Pro-life groups, while Paul receives lower marks and higher marks from NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
See their records at http://www.vote-smart.org/
If one was a one issue voter(I am not) then he should certainly vote for Thompson over Paul, and should certainly vote for Huckabee over any of the other candidates.
Well....if that issue was abortion, yes.
For me, I'm looking for a consistent conservative across the board. That eliminates a good many in this field
Yes, that was the issue I was referring to about one issue voters.
I think this is what Ken is referring to concerning one issue voters. I seriously doubt anyone still in, in Nov. '08' is going to fit this standard. If so, what then? It seems a terrific method to stop many conservative voters.
This is the most troublesome campaign I've seen.
OK, but it we don't get a compromise and a "promise" of support for the 1980 and following years plank of a constitutional amendment, then we clearly end up holding our noses in the name of defending the nation and defeating the leftists under Hillary. And we get a setback on social issues. Turning abortion over to states rights is like continuing the status quo with a little re-arranging of locations. It is a setback because there is only one way to stop abortion once and for all.
I think that the Democrats are trying to make the GOP jump the gun as they had to do because their candidate is so unpopular and so against all American tradition. We still have plenty of time and we don't want to waste a lot of money on this or any other crop of candidates. No GOP candidate can be elected without the Evangelical vote and we should insist on at least token support for our social agenda in exchange for our votes. We all agree on the defense of the nation except the libertarian element that really just camps in one party or the other.
It is hard to say that libertarians truly supported Reagan when they fielded almost a million votes against him. And Paul fielded about a half a million votes against Bush's Father, and since then Paul has been voting with the Democrats in Congress many times.
Here in Indianapolis, the GOP had a great victory in re-gaining control of this city after the Democrats tolerated a crime wave and tolerated so much corruption that tax increase after tax increase could not pay for all of the waste. In that election, in which the Republican Greg Ballard got 80,227 votes and the Democrats got 74,162 votes in a low turnout, the Libertarian Party, running a candidate with the same surname as the Democrat candidate's, only managed 3,639 votes. In short, Libertarian votes have declined since 1980, which is the history of all third parties in the USA (peak and decline).
R v. W should be overturned because ti has no legal standing as the case was brought about by a lie. The abortion issue would then go back to the states. It needs an amendment to stop states from slaughtering unborn children. That is most certainly worthy of being a single issue. As it has more weight and value above all others combined.
That's my thinking, also. Roe v Wade is poor law based on false testimony and having a conclusion much like Dred Scott that certain human beings did not have any God-given rights. Given the chance, states would continue the slaughter. Certainly, Chicago, Illinois, a longtime Democrat stronghold would be the scene of a states-rights abortion industry. I think that Detroit, Michigan, would be, too. George Will says that California would be. I think that we could assume that Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey would also be pro-abortion states.
Abortion does have "...more weight and value above all others combined...." because it is a matter of life and death. Abortion is a crime against humanity and the USA has a sewer of blood underneath the culture that proves that we do not practice what we preach.
Not going to happen.