Thompson: Overturning Roe v Wade is the goal

Ya won't get my vote Fred!

During his first run for the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson said in an interview to a libertarian Republican newsletter that the ultimate decision to have an abortion "must be made by the woman."

The comments were made in the July/August issue of Republican Liberty, the official newsletter of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

In the interview, Thompson was asked: "Some conservatives got flustered by your comments on abortion and Roe vs. Wade. Would you like to explain your position on abortion?"

Thompson answered: "Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/4908.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/us/politics/07thompson.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6230

Shame on Thompson for suggesting that actual voters decide the abortion issue!

Doesn't Thompson know that unelected judges, who decree what laws are allowed depending on whether they like those laws or not, is what the Founding Fathers envisaged?

Democracy NO! Rule by unelected judges YES!

I think that abortion, when used as a birth control method is repugnant. However, when used in cases involving real health issues and possibly rape, then it becomes a bit more of a gray area.
If I were a woman who's life would be in dangered by going full-term, I might want an abortion, same if I were the husband of such a woman.
If I were a teenage girl who had been raped, I might rather have an abortion than give birth to a child conceived under such circumstances.
Given the condition of the world, I think the issue of abortion is of minimal importance. It is more of a moral issue than one that might say cause WWIII or some such thing.
While it is an issue, I don't think I would let it be the deciding issue in choosing a president right now.
There are issues far more important that this right now.
However, were I running for president, and realized that there were millions of voters out there who have been convinced that this is the number one issue on the table, I might make such statements as Mr. Thompson has made.
Too bad we can't, all of us, take this one off the table and decide our next leader based on more important issues.

Do you want abortion?

...then be ready to abandon the right of the mother to sue for child support. She made the choice to bring the child into the world, not the man.

.... then be ready to legalize prostitution and drug use. If it's a woman's (or man's) body to choose to do with it as they please, then abolish those laws.

.... then be ready to file only one count of homicide against a defendant when a pregnant woman is murdered.

.... then abandon the right to prosecute a woman who does harm to her fetus by participating in excessive drug and/or achohol use.

Why is those on the left are pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but when it comes to that child's education or one's retirement, they don't want choices - they want the gov'ts way?

I hope he gets a daughter or family member who is raped and see what happens then,he also must remember sex is human nature so if no contraception is used there could be mistakes, as I do not feel abortion should be a form of contraception but it does happen, once it is overturned, it is too late. I hope these politicians remember their constituents, although they preach abstinence and religious values, they are the same that will be searching for the doctor who performs abortions if the unfortunate need arises.

Terry, The first to insist that the government must force women to carry a pregnancy to term, and the first to insist that the government in no way shape or form aid the mother or child after the birth.

Terry isn't Pro-life or Pro-choice, he's Pro-poverty and Pro-suffering.

Well, I think Thompson can go ahead and pack it in now. I can tell you right now, in 2 months time he will have been forgotten....and rightfully so after this one.

Why is those on the left are pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but when it comes to that child's education or one's retirement, they don't want choices - they want the gov'ts way?

Posted by: Terry | November 12, 2007 4:11 PM

Terry,
Why do the rightwing wacko's only care about a person right up until the minute they are born? after that they'll tell you that if you can't afford healthcare then you should just go off and die somewhere and if you break their laws they will kill you and if you aren't in the top 1% of the country in income then you don't qualify for their tax cuts for the rich.

Get lost....

The idea, Fred, should be to reduce unintended pregnancies and encourage women who are considering an abortion to "choose" to keep the child.

But the fundamental choice must be left up to a woman's own conscience.

I wish I could personally encourage all the troubled and confused women with an unwanted pregnancy to choose life.

I am in favor of a woman's right to choose, but only as Roe v Wade was intended. As a birth control measure in the early stages of the pregnancy.

Late term abortions should be outlawed except in the case where the woman's life is in danger.

Instead of dividing everyone on the issue, why not conevne a roundtable discussion, with the nation's religious, medical and political leaders, to determine an acceptable definition of where a fetus would be considered a human being with all rights.

Of course, you would have extremists on both sides who won't give in one way or another. Someone on the far-right might say, "conception and that's it". On the far-left, "not until the embilical chord is cut".

The problem is, it seems, there are just 2, very loud camps. And it's all or nothing.

I would hope the average American is more moderate and reasonable in general.

San Miguel, I largely agree with you.

Julie, stifle yourself. Pro-proverty and pro-suffering is ridiculous. If one was to follow your way of reasoning, then practically all children in Africa, Latin America and India should be aborted.

While I am clearly in favoring of overturning Roe v Wade, criminalizing average citizens and doctors is not the answer either. Abortions appear to be down, we should strive to bring those numbers down as low as possible and teach responsible sex.

Who gives a damn about abortion save a bunch of religious kooks?

Rhetorical question -- what happened to the GOP of less government and certainly a government that stays out of our personal lives/decisions?

Terry:

1. Non sequitur, irrelevant, wouldn't hold up in court anyway.
2. I've been arguing that for years. It'd reduce violent crime too!
3. As it should be.
4. Prosecute if and when the fetus is born.

Tell me, Terry, why is it that those on the right seem terminally incapable of comprehending the many facets of the abortion debate (demonstrated by your usage of the phrase "do you want abortion")?

I hope he gets a daughter or family member who is raped and see what happens then.

Posted by: Gary H. | November 12, 2007 4:12 PM

What an idiotic thing to say.

As my previous blog points out, I am pro-choice. But, Gary, that was just stupid.

Why is it that the Presidential hopefuls always default to the old issues and don't focus on what's important? The war, the economy, gas prices are all much more important to me than something that as a gay man does not concern me directly.

Politicians need to stop catering to these issues that have been previously decided in Supreme court.

I'm waiting to find out that he had to have an abortion. Oops! Either that or him traveling through the Minneapolis mens room at the airport.

Terry isn't Pro-life or Pro-choice, he's Pro-poverty and Pro-suffering.

Posted by: Julie | November 12, 2007 4:18 PM

You nailed it Julie,
Terry doesn't care about anything other than making sure that the angry old rich white guy Republicans continue to run this country and everyone else can kiss off.

Interesting that he feels that for abortion the states, not the federal govt should make laws.
BUT, when it comes to end of life decisions - where he has has personal experience - he feels that this is something tragic, personal and private that neither the state or federal govt should be involved in.

Hmm, seems that when it's happened to you, you see the light and want the govt out so you can make a personal decision. But when you're just talking, it's the opposite - ie the govt should make the decision for you.

I'm a liberal and I say go ahead and overturn Rowe vs Wade. That's the ONLY issue the whacky right have that keeps all the Bible belters voting red. The poor and downtrodden religious zealots use to vote blue until abortion became and issue and then combined with the hijacking of the republican party and the rise of right wing talk radio propaganda, the right were able to get these people to vote against their own self interest thus screwing themselves and giving free reign to those who would rather see corporations like GE and Blackwater run the country thus destroying the middle class.

i'm getting to the point where i am ashamed to be a republican.with the exception of rudy all of those idiotic republican presidential candidates are spending all their time trying to convince the bible thumpers which one of them is best suited to send women in to back alleys for abortions,pulling plan B prescriptions from the market and banning stem cell research.republicans except for rudy want to contiue with the bush bible thumping form of government.
also the stupid bastards that run the tribune always show i live in la grange whereas i really live in chicago

Democracy NO! Rule by unelected judges YES!

Posted by: Bruce | November 12, 2007 4:01 PM

Tell that to George Bush!!!

Abortion isn't the real issue. The real issue is do you as a person want anyone else involved in your medical decisions besides your doctor? Ala Terry Schiavo? Should anyone interfere between a persons wishes? Would you want anyone besides a family member, to decide your treatment if you are unable to make that decision? Just let a person decide with their doctor and not the government or some right wing nut-job!

This man will never see my vote. I am absolutely disgusted by this.

Neither the legislative branch nor the judiciary branch of the U.S. government has addressed the question "Is the fetus human?" In 1973, they claimed they "didn't know" and "there was not enough evidence." Roe v Wade was ultimately decided based on the mothers right to "privacy". Now, 30+ years later the scientific evidence is overwhelming; the heart beats at 18 days, the skeleton is complete at 42 days, the brain and all body systems present at eight weeks. Sonograms show the fetus swimming, sucking his thumb, reacting to light and to pain...We know the fetus has brain waves and dreams. If we can agree that the person is indeed a person, can we agree that he or she is an American citizen? Doesn't this argument become moot once we decide if the fetus is a person? A human being and citizen? When has the right to privacy ever trumped the right to life? It was not so very long ago that our government and Constitution estranged another very vulnerable group; whether it be the Dred Scott decision (African Americans could never be citizens; slaves or not) or the infamous 3/5s compromise (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the US CONSTITUTION) which in effect stated that slaves were only to be counted as 3/5ths of a person. If ever we are to think that "because it is legal it is right", all we need do is read our very own history, which sadly includes treating vulnerable groups as disposable goods because they are inconvenient to us...

This guy and his opinions are nothing more than an amusing distration. But if he wants to fly around the country knocking the other hypocrites on the GOP ticket - I'm good with that.

Seems like another smoke-screen compaign for bids.. why not spend your time on policies and issues that affect the majority of the people. Issues like abortion and gay marriage affect such a small number of people, it seems a shame to waste so many public dollars debating them.. how about spending the money on an intelligent discussion about the spending on the "war on terror"

Will Thompson never learn. Now he must disappear, just as those who didn't follow the party line in Nazi Germany did.

Terry,
A woman doesn't want to experience a birth that will likely be a risk to the health of the mother and Terry says, "Have a C-Section you wench!" What other medical procedures would you force women to have? Boob jobs? You just don't get it.

Yes, using abortion for birth control is repugnant. But so is having unwanted children in this world. If you want to stop the abortions, then make it mandatory that anyone on welfare is on reliable birthcontrol and that children are put onto birthcontrol. Also, if a woman has an abortion (for reasons not of physical or of rape), then she has to use a birthcontrol implant good for a pre-set amount of time.

This insistance on overturing Roe v. Wade is really, really started to get old. Do these MEN running the country realize the TRUE message they are sending: lets take away a woman's right to make a serious decision regarding pregnancy, be it a mistake or not?

Darn, I swear I thought we had moved on from this. This country is truly still in the dark ages on a LOT regarding race, womens rights. We have GOT to get those old boys out of congress.

"Thompson said the appointment of judges was second only to national security as a priority that Republicans should consider"

Gee Fred... wouldn't you think you might want to take on healthcare or education as #2? you know... something that affects more than 2-3% of the population?

Talk about PANDERING

So, Thompson supports appointing judges based on their personal/political beliefs, and their interpretation of the law, whether involving abortion or any other issue. Unelected de facto legislators with lifetime tenure. Your Thompson democracy in action.

I agree with Mr. Thompson. We make abortion apart of our live. We do not need the goverment deciding our decision or paying for it. I do not want my taxes going to kill a child. And yes to all the liberals, they are alive and they are children. I just wish all people would understand that we are killing our future Americans. It is time to stop abortion. As far as the comment on child support, we need to have our representative make child support a federal law and not a state law that they must pay and if they whind up in Jail then any money they get for doing work goes directly to the mother and child and they also pay until the child reaches 21 years old.

Abortion is killing babies.

I am voting for Thompson.

"Do you want abortion?

...then be ready to abandon the right of the mother to sue for child support. She made the choice to bring the child into the world, not the man."
The man made the choice to lay down with the woman... Men are incredibly pro-life until you ask them to carry a child for 9 months, be the primary care giver, wake in the middle of the night to help with feeding. If you CHOOSE to have sex with someone you are choosing to deal with all consequences of those actions including supporting a child...

Whatever your personal views on abortion, you are welcome to them. Please have one or not based on your own sense of morals and values. Please also realize that others in the world might think differently and might make a different choice. Great word that, Choice. Finally, please apply logic to the debate and come to the understanding that abortion will never be illegal. If we get over that hurdle, we might be able to work together and find ways to have fewer abortions, which I think we can all agree to.

OH look, a pet, buzzword issue that I don't care about! But since Freddy professes such a disdain for STANDING LAW, I don't think someone like this could be trusted to adhere and follow the laws elsewhere. If his goal is to CHANGE the law, rather than abide by it, this is a person CLEARLY unfit to lead.

Plus, I don't get why old, wrinkled idiots like this guy, who will likely never be put in such a decision making decision (although he probably wouldn't make the best dad to a baby with his much younger trophy wife at his age anyway) even think they have any place to impress their beliefs on others. The only word I can use to describe such people is: LOSERS. Seriously. Are you so pathetic, or so weak in your own beliefs, that you need validation by having your beliefs imposed through government policy? Are you people SO weak that you need dictations from the government outlining every aspect of your behavior? You do know we allow voluntary committals, right?

steve34: Great idea, let's get the religious leaders involved in deciding when a fetus is "alive". No need for separation of church and state here.

Julie,

I don't think it was the gov't that performed the sex act that got the woman pregnant. Do you not know what act leads to pregnancy? Why also do you think every unwanted preganncy will lead to poverty or suffering if the gov't steps in to help?

Jimmy LAck of Freedom,

Where is written in the constituition that the gov't provides healthcare for all children? Same question I posed to Julie above - do you know the physical act that leads to pregancy? Did the gov't force either of the two parties into committing that act?

Rod - show nme where I mentioned religion once in my posts?

Timmy B,

1. Can you show me case law on that? If it is a woman's choice, why sohouldn't bear the full repsonsibility of her choice?

2. Therefore you agree that current law allows the gov't to have control of an individual's body? And therefore, there is no true "right of privacy"?

3. At least you are consistant. I believe there is Laci and Connor's Law on the books. So is that unconstitutional? Does that mean the right to kill an unborn child is only lawful if approved by the mother and the act is done by a doctor? Either way, still a dead child/fetus. Why is one method OK and the other not?

The abortion debate is often framed around religion when in fact it is not a religious issue.

Math Whiz,

This will never effect you because your hand can't get pregnant.

Suzy - where did I say ""Have a C-Section you wench!". I'll debate you or anyone, but don't make false statements. Probably with that attitude, you don't get it either.

Re: If you want abortion:
1. ...then be ready to abandon the right of the mother to sue for child support.
Makes no sense- both parties conceived the child.

2. .... then be ready to legalize prostitution and drug use. If it's a woman's (or man's) body to choose to do with it as they please, then abolish those laws.
- Relevant question is whether the interest to society to regulate is greater than the individual right to privacy. I think the argument is easy to make about prostitution's danger to society. Drug/alchohol use is a question of degree- alcohol is legal but regulated. I think marijuana should also fall in that category but not heroin, etc.

3. ... then be ready to file only one count of homicide against a defendant when a pregnant woman is murdered.
- A murder's a murder. One count is fine.

4. .... then abandon the right to prosecute a woman who does harm to her fetus by participating in excessive drug and/or achohol use.
- Again the privacy issue- I'm not sure what the current laws say but you probably can't prosecute for injuring an unborn child. If the child's born into an unfit family it can probably be removed by the state, but that's hardly a positive thing. Do you think it's better than abortion?

Thompson is chasing after the thumper vote here.

Seems like Huckabee is the only Republican candidate who hasn't vaccilated or flip-flopped on this issue.

Thompson should go back to Hollywood with his trophy wife and retire from politics.

Making statements about overturning Roe vs. Wade shows that this actor does not know enough about our laws.
Does Mr. Law & Order know that our fundamental Right to Privacy was judicially constructed by the Supreme Court by Roe vs. Wade combined with the 9 Amendment (rights not reserved to the state are reserved for the citizens).... ?
To overturn the Supreme Court precedent that commonly is thought of is the Abortion Case, would take down half of our case for a fundamental right to privacy? In other words, Americans will be less free. Has there not been enough of our Freedoms lost lately?

Kathryn's post at 5:06 pm is a worthy consideration.

Terry is all for personal responsibility, as long as he determines which choices it is valid for the individual to make.

Terry, do you want to approve who can participate in the physical act that leads to pregnancy too?

Oh, and I certainly do not believe that evry unwanted pregnancy will lead to poverty and suffering without government assistance. However, as opposed to you, I'm not willing to ignore the cases where it will lead to poverty and suffering. I'm concerned about the well being of all children, including those who are born to people who's personal decisions I don't agree with.

Whatever your personal views on abortion, you are welcome to them. Please have one or not based on your own sense of morals and values. Please also realize that others in the world might think differently and might make a different choice. Great word that, Choice. Finally, please apply logic to the debate and come to the understanding that abortion will never be illegal. If we get over that hurdle, we might be able to work together and find ways to have fewer abortions, which I think we can all agree to.

Posted by: Jim | November 12, 2007 5:33 PM

Well put Jim.

If we don't start working diligently on our population explosion, none of this will matter. The law of abortion will not be one of choice, it will be mandatory.

Gary, did you just wish rape upon someone? Wow. Shame on you.

San Miguel,
I agree with you...

Paulo

"If we don't start working diligently on our population explosion, none of this will matter. The law of abortion will not be one of choice, it will be mandatory."

I couldn't agree more. Too bad Terry's parents didn't take this to heart themselves and refrain from procreating.

Here we go again with the red herring abortion debate. While we are occupied being incensed and offended or happy and cheering, depending on your personal stance, politicians are reaching around to our back pockets and stealing everything they can. Wise up, folks and start debating things that matter. The abortion status is not changing, but the media and politician love to use it to district the public.

People need to understand that the reason the abortion issue is so contentious is that the two sides aren't arguing about the same thing. The pro-life people say, "Abortion is wrong/evil and should be banned," but the pro-choice people aren't saying, "Abortion is great, let's keep it!" By the same token, pro-choice people argue "It's the woman's right to choose," but the pro-lifers aren't arguing, "Let's take away womens' rights!" The key is that you have to balance the "evil" of abortion against the "evil" of the government intruding on someone's privacy. Any argument for either position that doesn't take this into account is worthless.

Wealthy women will ALWAYS have access to an abortion provider, regardless of their political persuasion. Over turning Roe v. Wade will only mean that low income women will have to risk back alley abortionists or do-it-yourself abortions. What many do not realize is that if abortion is criminalized, the unintended consequence will be a higher crime rate.

Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions from happening. Fact, plain and simple. If gov't outlaws it, they would lose the "pro-life" vote, and the pro lifers would have to find something else to do.

San Miguel, Paulo,

It's the GOP that keeps abortion "on the table" as its litmus test. Most of us HAVE moved on.

No Uterus, No Vote...it's that simple, guys.

Let's see how many men want the government to determine if they have a mandatory vasectomy or not...for example.

Anti-Choice people in this country are in the majority. The vast majority of American women believe that the issue of abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor. The rest of you may continue to not have abortions, but leave the majority of women in this country to their own counsel.

Rev. William Hayashi

Until men can become pregnant, I think they should have NO SAY on the question of abortion. They never have to live through a pregnancy. In this case to all men and women who think they are are holiier than thou...I say MYOB. You whom are against legalized abortion are for back alley abortion which I thought we got rid of with Roe vs Wade many many many years ago.

Thompson: Overturning Roe v Wade is the goal

I got it, so it's o.k. to make money supporting abortion by working as a lobbiest but...I guess I don't get it. Sounds like another flip-flopping old, out of touch GOP hack.

The scariest part of Thompson is that he would seat judges based on their personal beliefs, as long as they agreed with his. He would change the three legs of government to two...and one if he could also control congress. Thompson democracy in action.

Hey gang - Since abortion is so bad and "responsible sex" and abstinence only prevent unwanted pregnancies, let's make it simple and legalize same sex marriage - Then only couples really wanting children would have them. Pregnancy would be moot!

For those of you that think Fred Thompson hasn't been addressing any other issues besides abortion, you are wrong. He has released a comprehensive illegal immigration plan and social security plan. The federalist approach he takes to the abortion issue is the only way to address this issue. He is fully aware that an amendment will never pass. At least with his plan there could be enough change to appease the radical right.

Yes, Huckabee has never waivered on abortion, but that is the only issue for which he has conservative values. Huckabee's illegal immigration platform is all for illegal immigration. In fact, Arkansas became a sanctuary state during his Governorship. Also, Huckabee is the king of tax hikes. It should indicate something isn't right with Huckabee when the Arkansas Republican Assembly votes 80% in favor of supporting Fred Thompson.

If you are interested in the truth about what Fred Thompson stands for, try visiting his website, www.fred08.com instead of believing everything you hear via the Mainstream Media.

On a personal note, I am an adoptee. I have found my biological family. My biological mother told me that if abortion had been legal in 1957 I would have been aborted. There are other options to abortion, one is the responsibility to not conceive in the first place and of course adoption.

"Wealthy women will ALWAYS have access to an abortion provider, regardless of their political persuasion. Over turning Roe v. Wade will only mean that low income women will have to risk back alley abortionists or do-it-yourself abortions. What many do not realize is that if abortion is criminalized, the unintended consequence will be a higher crime rate.

Posted by: WILLIAM ROBERTS | November 12, 2007 7:28 PM"

William got it straight. This is the American way;

1. Place elbow on table
2. Raise clenched fist
3. Drive face into fist
4. Repeat

First a little common sense is in order here:

1. I am a Liberal, however I became personally anti-abortion after witnessing the birth of my 2 children. However, common sense says that some abortions may be medically necessary, even morally considering rape. So, there is no definitive answer to this problem. Sometimes, religious answers are just as up in the air - try comparing tenants in the Old and New Testaments sometime.

2. This goes back to what I've said before on this issue, if every family took the responsibility to teach responsible sex to their children and instilled the idea of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, we might be on a much sounder footing for debating this, a it is we retreat to our allotted camps and fling accusation after accusation at one another. People like me in the middle who believe there is common ground will constantly be marginalized for our beliefs.

3. I suggest you find a copy of "Puritans and Sex" by Edmund S. Morgan. As a historian writing in the 1950's he showed that even though the puritans punished per-marital sex and thus the parents of an illegitimate child with DEATH, they rarely used that. Logically they understood that because sex was apart of human nature, if they were to punish every violation of the law with DEATH, there wouldn't be anyone left in their Holy Commonwealth. They also understood that so long as the two who had sex got married, even after the birth of the child, they child and the new family were not to be shunned in society, it was only when one of the parents refused to marry that that individual was pushed from society. The point is this: sex has been going on forever, and will continue on forever still.

4. If no abortions, then I hope the Fundamentalist and Conservative Christians (Roman Catholics) will realize that the alternative to unwanted births is BIRTHCONTROL, regardless of the so-called flaws of birth control, its better that the alternative.

5. If the Conservatives really want to end abortion, than I hope that those who support the ending of abortion will either create publicly funded orphanages or adopt these un-wanted children that they pine for.

6. If the Democrats want to be in power for the near future, all they have to do is adopt the same anti-abortion stance as the Republicans and under cut the only issue that they regularly take a stand on. They haven't been true to their libertarian roots when it comes to social politics and economics, so remove the only thing they have to stand on.

Just thoughts
Buckley

Terry, FYI, that "Suzie" post was another farce post from our Loony Left friends. The person's name used in that post has an affiliation to me, so it was just a way for John E or Dumb Dumb Janet or one of the other Weirdo Loons of trying to get to me.

Fred Thompson doesn't have a chance at all to win the presidency. If you want to check out a real candidate with real values, check out Hillary Clinton. You won't be disappointed.

Steve,

But who made the ultimate choice to bring the child into the world?

Where is the "right to privacy" that is in the constitution?

Read Laci and Connor's Law.

Actually, current law can prosect the mother if she doing harm to unborn fetus thru things like drugs and alchol.

Julie,

Of the age of legal consent. I just think if you decide to have sex, you better be prepared to live with the consequences. Do the wanted children need the gov't assistance also? Do you think that only the poor have unwanted pregnancies? What about the wanted pregnancies of the poor?

Jack,

Move to the Peoples Republic of China - the socilaist, left-leaning society you probably adore where gov't knows what is best for you.

Do the world a favor and date your wrist.

I am an abortion absolutist, a real libertarian on this issue.

A woman may choose an abortion for any reason she deems necessary.

basic human decency says abortions are bad because the babies are people too, it that a grey zone ?

they are human, they have arms, legs, brains, eyes, they eat, they breathe in their own way, and they're getting ready to come into the world - you don't just kill them because they can't say a word to defend themselves or hire a lawyer

let them come into the world - God created them

If you are opposed to abortion, don't have one. Otherwise, shut up and let the woman decide.

Why is it that the Presidential hopefuls always default to the old issues and don't focus on what's important?

Fred isn't focusing strictly on this issue - I find him far more involved in advancing the main issues of the day: immigration, national security and the "third rail" of politics: Fixing social security now instead of later when it will go broke.

Fred embraces the avant garde notion that the federal government should be subject to the limitations of our constitution, thus freeing the states to handle most matters. Much of the mess we now have as a nation is due to a federal government that has run amok due to a tax-n-spend mentality and a lust for power from both political parties.

Fred is consistent, tough, honest and a "says what he means and means what he says" straight-shooter and panders to nobody; a rare and valuable commodity these days. He gets my vote!

Terry,
No you didn't actually say those words. But do we really think it is far fetched for you to say that. You would force women to give birth even at the risk of their health and their life. If a child has pre-natal encephalitis and the baby's head has swollen to the size of a beach ball you would take abortion of the table as an option for the patient and doctor. The only way that baby is coming out is thru the vagina or by C-section. Now I'll ask again...What other surgical procedures would you force women to have?

Steve 34 please read my full comment on this issue about 4r responses from the end of article how that 1 line got there??

We fear free will.

Posted by: themadtrader | November 12, 2007 5:37 PM

The idea is simply to bring together all differing views in order to determine a reasonable compromise to an increasingly divisive issue.

This has nothing to do with seperaton of church and state. I didn't say the discussion would result in making any laws. But if all views are not accounted for, yes including religious views, that would be anti-American.

GREAT interview! GREAT piece!

Thompson presents a rational and intelligent position for both review and overturn of Roe v. Wade AND for the states to determine the correct course of action regarding abortion.

The American nation will ultimately do the right thing and protect innocent lives.

If no abortions, then I hope the Fundamentalist and Conservative Christians (Roman Catholics) will realize that the alternative to unwanted births is BIRTHCONTROL, regardless of the so-called flaws of birth control, its better that the alternative.

Posted by: Buckley | November 12, 2007 8:58 PM

I am a Roman Catholic. You, I assume, are not.

While the RC churches position on abortion is "Conservative", their positions on other issues are not.

They are against the death penalty, for universal health care, and pro-immigration reform including some amnesty.

And Pope John Paul II made a speech that was staunchly against the invasion of Iraq back in '03.

Don't lump us all into the "Conservative Christian" stereotype. It is not true.

There is no argument without a clear understanding or acknowledgment of what is actually growing in the womb-

If the fetus is not a human when the abortion occurs, when does the "non-human" become human.
OR
If the fetus is a human when the abortion occurs we have a murder.

This basic human rights issue has morphed into a easier to sell, more antiseptic, womans rights and/or a privacy issue.

All valid, but the human rights issue has to take precedence..
Any pro- abortion folks that have a rational insight into defining the moment the fetus changes from a "fetus" into a human being, please let us know when that is- and actually being born doesn't count.

Lacking this definition, you are really left with HOPING that it was not a human being whose life has been ended. Or even worse, KNOWING that a human life was ended but rationalizing it and making it a privacy issue.

We should appoint a Blue Ribbon Panel to study this issue.

HRC

Heartburn:

My analysis calls for freedom of choice even if one assumes -- with justification -- that fetuses are humans from the moment of conception.

Simply put, our society has a high tolerance for homocide when countervailing interests are perceived as important. War, self-defense, and the death penalty are all concepts that "conservatives" seem to embrace enthusiastically. People who endorse these concepts don't approve of killing, but they find that other interests are also in play and sometimes must prevail. Whether those interests are to attempt to prevent greater harm -- self defense, war -- or to provide retribution -- death penalty -- the reality is that we're really not all that concerned about the sanctity of life per se.

In the abortion context, you can't grant personhood to a fetus but deny it to a mother. The mother's interests are real, though variable. A woman who wants to use abortion as birth control following unguarded, consensual sex is different than a woman who was raped, or a woman who faces death or great harm if she carries the baby to term. Each has some interest worth protecting.

So we don't need to debate whether a fetus is a human. Even if we assume it's a human, we as a society can decide that the interests of a pregnant woman who's been raped are more important than those of a two week old fetus.

But we can't play God, anti-choicers cry. That genie's out of the bottle, I respond. As a society we've already decided that we can kill some of Mr. God's creatures. The only question is which among the fetus population fit that bill. This is a nuanced question which cannot be answered with the sanctimonious platitudes favored by many anti-choicers.

Pro-Life supporters (many of them men on a religious rant) always castigate the woman for getting an abortion. I may have missed it but where is the indictment of the male side of the pregnancy equation. If there were more reponsible men (fathers) there would be very few unwanted children.