There’s been a lot of debate over Fred Thompson’s stance on abortion lately, so I thought I’d do the typical nerdy thing and compile all of his past statements and views (that I know about or could find) in one place. Far from being a hit piece, this is intended to spark and educate the discussion of Thompson’s abortion background. Enjoy, and keep it civil.
1991
- Thompson possibly lobbies for the pro-choice advocacy group National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association*
1994
- Eagle Survey: Thompson checks the box indicating he opposes “criminalizing abortion”, later says he “doesn’t remember” checking the box
- Conservative Spectator Interview: “I?m not willing to support laws that prohibit early term abortions.”
- Interview: “The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government.”
- Republican Liberty Interview: “The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.”
- Senate Debate: Government should not “come in and criminalize, let?s say, a young girl and her parents and her doctor as aiders and abettors that would be involved.”
1996
- Tennesseans For Choice Survey: Thompson checks “no” when asked if he favors criminalizing abortion
- Christian Coalition Survey: Thompson checks box indicating he opposes a constitutional amendment protecting the sanctity of human life
- Handwritten Statement on Same Survey: “I do not believe abortion should be criminalized.”
- Campaign Policy Statement: “The decision to have an early term abortion is a moral issue and should not be a legal one subject to the dictates of the government.”
- FLARE (Family, Life, America, Responsible Education Under God Inc.) Survey: Thompson circles “N/A” on question “Does human life begin at conception?”
- Tennessean Article: Thompson was “an abortion-rights defender in a party with a pro-life tilt.”
- Thompson calls abortion “a distracting issue” and that “We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us,” says we not only need to drop abortion from the GOP platform but drop the entire party platform.
1997
- Letter to a TN Constituent: “I believe that government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area [abortion].”
2007
- Hannity and Colmes: “I would not be, and never have been, for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this for example, that if they chose to criminalize a young woman…” (cut off by Hannity)
It has long been claimed that Fred Thompson has a 100% voting record with the National Right to Life organization. Here are his actual ratings:
1997-1998: 87%
1999-2000: 78%
2001-2002: 33%
On the other side of the coin… Thompson did win the endorsement of the National Right to Life organization in 1994 and 1996, and he has a solidly pro-life voting record in the Senate. The reason for his low scores from NRTL are mostly because of his support for McCain-Kennedy campaign finance reform (which Fred often spoke about as the McCain-Kennedy-Thompson bill), which most right-to-life organizations opposed. One could argue his actions in the Senate are more important than his rhetoric.
Is Fred Thompson pro-choice, at least in the first trimester, today like he has been the rest of his political career? Or when he says he is pro-life, does he mean that although he used to be pro-choice, he has now joined the pro-life crowd?
If the second option is the truth, which we may not ever know given Thompson’s obfuscations on the topic (and Hannity’s save during his interview), I would say welcome to the pro-life camp. After all, a similar list could be made for Mitt Romney’s past positions on government involvement in the abortion debate. However, Romney has been open and very public about his switch to a politically pro-life position; as Ramesh Ponnuru (who believes option 2 from above) said over at The Corner this week, “There’s no question that Thompson has moved on abortion. [H]e wasn’t pro-life at the start of his political career – and he is doing himself no favors by failing to acknowledge it.”
*
Numerous witnesses, including some of Thompson’s coworkers at the time, say Thompson did; minutes from a meeting showed he was hired; Thompson’s campaign at first flat out denied it ever happened. Then, Thompson backtracked and said he didn’t remember if it happened or not. Then in an interview on FOXNews, he may have implicitly admitted it happened by saying when asked about the situation, “You need to separate a lawyer who is advocating a position from the position itself.? According the The Politico: “Fred Thompson is backing off his flat denial that he once lobbied for an abortion-rights group. He now says he doesn?t remember it, but does not dispute evidence to the contrary.”
July 13th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Wow.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Well put, MattC.
The longer Fred fails to acknowledge the facts of his record, and the longer he obfuscates his current position, the longer the debate goes on. Now would be a good time for full disclosure and candid explanation of his changes in thought (if any). Even if it does him political harm, the risk is greater if he is forced to be honest later, after he’s brought himself more attention.
Hang a lantern on your problems, Fred.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I thought I was following this issue fairly close, but I had no idea that FDT had said so many times that he was against criminalizing abortion. I knew about the 94 survey, but then heard him say it could have been a staffer filling it out based upon what he believed FDT’s views were. I guess that doesn’t hold any water. Maybe this is why he hasn’t joined the race officially yet. He doesn’t want to answer these types of questions in a debate. I happend to think that leaving this issue as murky as he has cannot help him (or the GOP).
July 13th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
You trolls need to stop the smear campaign and stick to the facts. It was just a few moments ago posted on this very site that these statements are not accurate.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
If you follow his statements, you will see a slow shift to the right on this issue, and even moreso after his young daughter was born. At the same time
However, the 1996 one about throwing out the platform is taken completely out of context. He was campaigning for Bob Dole, who was running on throwing out the platform.
Two different posts on this topic:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010490.php#comments
http://www.conservablogs.com/blogsforthompson/2007/07/11/rival-campaign-fred-thompson-again-but-they-didnt-do-their-homework/
PS.. I think the Captain read the same article as I did.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I think he’s the worst. At least Giuliani is honest and owned up to his actual position; at least Romney has acknowledged that he has flopped….Fred Thompson is just lying. He reminds me a bit of Bill Clinton.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Paul: You trolls need to stop the smear campaign and stick to the facts.
Is there a single thing you can point to here which is factually incorrect?
July 13th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Tommy, don’t you think you’re doing yourself a disservice to your guy by never admitting error?
I mean…I’m a Paul guy through-and-through, but I admit that he’s not perfect. And if he were to say something against my ideology, I would (and do) criticize him for it.
I don’t know, just my 2 cents.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I just did admit that Thompson was effectively pro-choice in 1994. I’m pointing out that quoting the “throw out the republican platform” article was taken completely out of context.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
What does bother me is putting words into his mouth on Hannity and Colmes when he didn’t say anything. and taking the platform thing out of context.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
He had a pro-life record in the Senate despite running as a mostly pro-choice candidate in 1994. He’s made comments about how he wouldn’t want to criminalize abortions, etc — okay…instead of being an extreme pro-lifer or pro-choicer like some, Thompson’s remained practical about his views. If only he’d actually come forward and actually acknowledge that instead of beating around the bush, I think he’d get more respect for it.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
FDT’s “trouble with abortion”? He has the NRL writing letters on his behalf and FDT is the one with the problems on abortion?
To the contrary, the pro-life movement looks to be quietly assembling behind the Tennessean. Everything else is noise.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Matt,
On that Tennesseans for Choice questionnaire, Thompson also checked a box that said “Abortion should be legal in all circumstances for the first three months.”
http://www.cbn.com/images4/cbnnews/blogs/TennesseansForChoiceQuestionnaire.pdf
Others you might want to add to your list…
On July 29, 1993, during an interview with The Memphis Commercial Appeal, Thompson said that he “supports the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.”
On October 21, 1994, The Washington Post reported that “both” Thompson and his Democratic opponent in the 1994 Senate race, then-Rep. Jim Cooper, “believe in legal abortion.”
Do any FredHeads want to address Thompson’s specific comment to Sean Hannity in June that was deliberately cut off, as Hannity tried to save Fred, knowing he was on the verge of blowing his own ‘pro-life’ cover?
What do those of you who want to believe Thompson is pro-life think Fred was saying in that interview? What’s an alternate, plausible finish to his sentence that logically fits your ‘pro-life’ narrative predicated in wishful thinking?
And, ask yourselves this…
Why didn’t Sean Hannity respectfully let former Senator Thompson finish what he was saying, but instead chose to step in to try and complete Thompson’s thought for him?
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest Fred Thompson supports any law that would make, at the very least, first trimester abortions illegal.
Based on the degree of denial and self-delusion we’re witnessing, I suspect that the vast majority of Fred’s most ardent supporters would question, if not abandon their support for Thompson, if, in fact, they came to accept the reality that Fred is pro-choice.
The irony is, by being moderately pro-choice, supporting only first trimester abortions, Thompson actually becomes a more viable, more electable candidate for the general election. The question is: As we proceed toward the primaries, will the GOP’s social conservative base continue to say ‘I’m with Fred’?
It would behoove those FredHeads desperately clinging to their fantasy to step away from Kesey’s Kool Aid, recognize reality, and demonstrate some rational behavior, instead of hallucinating on the Thompson campaign ‘trails’.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
“Do any FredHeads want to address Thompson’s specific comment to Sean Hannity in June that was deliberately cut off, as Hannity tried to save Fred, knowing he was on the verge of blowing his own ‘pro-life’ cover?”
Aron, I’ve told you, you are putting words into his mouth. I don’t have any idea what he ‘would’ve’ said, and honestly, neither do you.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I think the only one of these “evangelical” leaders who may have the balls to call him out on it is James Dobson. All the others are probably all in the bag for him, clinging on to him as their only hope to retain any power within the Republican party in the near future. The reason I say James Dobson is that he has already called him out once, and my “conspiracy” theory is that he really really wants Newt Gingrich in this race.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I agree with Aron, I just don’t understand the bizarre behavior of Thompson supporters. The only reason they support the guy over much stronger candidates like Giuliani or Romney is because he is supposedly anti-abortion; then no matter how much evidence shows that he isn’t really (he clearly thinks abortion for the first trimester is okey dokey) they just ignore it, and continue to prefer
this guy who will definitely lose to Hillary Clinton, because he is anti-abortion. He’s not. Get over it. If abortion is the only issue for you, vote for Huckabee.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
I like Thompson and it has nothing to do with his abortion stance and everything to do with his views on federalism. Mmmmm, federalism.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Tommy,
What do you think Fred was saying? Venture a guess…make something up that would be consistent with his previous statement and would refute the evidence that Thompson never has and never will be for a law that criminalizes first trimester abortions.
Come on, you can do it…
We all had these types of reading comprehension questions in school and in the SATs..
“I would not be, and never have been, for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this for example, that if they chose to criminalize a young woman and _________________________________________________________________. (Fill in the blank)
Can you even conjure up a reasonable explanation as to why Sean Hannity would cut in, interrupt the former Senator, and try to finish his thought?
Are you so delusional to think that between now and the first caucus/primary that a reporter isn’t going to request of Fred to finish the sentence in which Sean stepped in, or ask him to clarify his position on first term abortions?
I’m telling you right now — While I would rather see Thompson instead of Hillary or Obama in the White House in ‘09, I, personally, if need be, will embarrass Fred in front of the cameras at a press conference and expose the truth if someone from CBS or CNN does not.
Do you actually want this story to go away and then resurface after Thompson secures the nomination, only to have the liberal mainstream media then unleash this lie Fred is seeking to disseminate to his mindless sheep supporters?
July 13th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Aron,
How about “her doctor for making that decision, but we have afederal system and if the voters of Tennessee want that, htat’s their business”
Gary is right, the pro life movement has found their guy.
Once he starts talking about his babies and the sonograms, he’ll have the right eating out of the palm of his hand.
It’s all over but the shouting. But the anti-Frederalists can keep up their attacks, it just won’t do them any good.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Tommy, I DO know how he would have finished that sentence. Watch me use the powers of logic and deduction:
Quote: “I would not be, and never have been, for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this for example, that if they chose to criminalize a young woman…â€
Now, look at the key phrases: “Would not be, and NEVER HAVE BEEN” and “criminalize a young woman”.
The words never have been logically refer back to his prior positions on the issue. We KNOW for a fact what his prior position on the issue is because he repeatedly affirmed it in 1993 and 1994. To wit:
- On July 29, 1993, during an interview with The Memphis Commercial Appeal, Thompson said that he “supports the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.â€
- Eagle Survey: Thompson checks the box indicating he opposes “criminalizing abortionâ€, later says he “doesn’t remember†checking the box
- Conservative Spectator Interview: “I’m not willing to support laws that prohibit early term abortions.â€
Interview: “The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government.â€
- Republican Liberty Interview: “The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.â€
- Senate Debate: Government should not “come in and criminalize, let’s say, a young girl and her parents and her doctor as aiders and abettors that would be involved.â€
Ok, so now we know precisely what his past positions are, and we know that he was directly referencing them when he said “Would not be, and NEVER HAVE BEEN.”
So, how do we know how he finishes the sentence “that if they chose to criminalize a young woman…”? Well, again, let’s go to the film:
- Senate Debate: Government should not “come in and criminalize, let’s say, a young girl and her parents and her doctor as aiders and abettors that would be involved.â€
- Eagle Survey: Thompson checks the box indicating he opposes “criminalizing abortionâ€, later says he “doesn’t remember†checking the box
Even if you believe that Thompson did not check the Eagle Survey box, he most certainly said what he said on the Senate floor.
Therefore, Tommy, we DO know what he was talking about, and we do know EXACTLY how that sentence would end.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Jim in #22:
The federalism ending to that sentence is NOT a possible conclusion. Here’s why:
“I would not be, and never have been, for a law that says, on the state level…”
Read the last four words there again. Fred is saying that he opposes abortion restrictions on the STATE LEVEL. We already know his federalism position precludes his support for a federal abortion ban.
So, we’ve eliminated Jim’s effort in #22, since Fred was clearly referring to whether he would support a state-level ban of abortion.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
And, of course, as most post in #23 explains, we know how the sentence ends because it is virtually the same sentence that he used in the Senate Debate:
- Senate Debate: Government should not “come in and criminalize, let’s say, a young girl and her parents and her doctor as aiders and abettors that would be involved.â€
July 13th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Jim,
Stay focused. We’re talking about what Fred Thompson, himself, believes. He, personally, does NOT support making first trimester abortions illegal.
Whether pro-life voters are only interested in a presidential candidate who opposes Roe, and couldn’t care less if Thompson doesn’t advocate or endorse a ban on fetuses aborted in the first 12-13 weeks of gestation…well, let’s just say, we will soon find out.
Sounds like you know what I’m saying is the truth, but it seems you’re only concerned that Fred’s current pro-life constituents remain duped, and are of the belief that no amount of education can infiltrate the minds of the ignorant.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
The real problem is not with abortion, it is with lying.
In an ideal world, everyone, on all sides, could agree that a politician who, at the very beginning of his (non)campaign, starts off by lying to his own presumed base, should probably be dropped like a hot potato.
I mean seriously, people. Do you want your next president to be someone who instincivly lies the very first minute he is confronted with some inconvenient facts? Is this the kind of president you want?
July 13th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
No Tano, it is not.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Yeah, I’m actually with Tano here. Fred seems to be extremely deceptive on this: “Well, I don’t remember it, but I’m not disputing anything to the contrary.” So either we have someone with a terrible memory or someone who is covering something up. What a wonderful set of options.
As someone else said here — if abortion is *the* issue for you, then my God, what would be so awful about supporting Huckabee or Brownback? Is there something wrong with them? The only guy who can win is Rudy (evidenced even more in recent polls, where he’s a point or two behind Hillary, while all the others are five to ten points behind her), so if you’ve gotta go with a losing candidate, sheesh, at least get behind one with principle. Don’t delude yourself into thinking Fred’s got a better shot at winning the general election than Huckabee or Brownback. They’ll all lose.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
“RepublicanWomenAgainstFred”
fredisaglobalist appears! What name are you going to go by tomarrow? Jimrobinson, fredisaneocon, conservativesagainstfred….
July 13th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
[...] Jul 13th, 2007 by Brad Hopkins Here. [...]
July 13th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Aron, #21
I’ll start by saying I’m not a Fred Thompson supporter though I haven’t ruled him out. And I have serious questions about his position on abortion that would have to be answered before I could support him.
But here’s a possible ending I can come up with that I wouldn’t have a problem with:
“I would not be, and never have been, for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this for example, that if they chose to criminalize a young woman and (her parents for having an abortion. Pro-life legislation would apply penalties to doctors who perform abortions and that is something I could support.)”
I don’t necessarily see that as a likely conclusion to the sentence, especially since I haven’t seen it offered by any Thompson supporters but it is a possible ending to the sentence.
As for Hannity’s motivation for cutting him off it seems like he either wasn’t paying attention to what Thompson was saying and wanted to jump to the next topic or that he wanted to prevent Thompson from possibly making a controversial and damaging statement on his program.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I am off for a relaxing weekend and as usual, I PROMISE myself not to even look at political sites on the weekend, but i gotta tell ya, it is truly amazing how much we republicans are bashing each other, while annointing Hillary as the dem noiminee and even picking out her friggin running mate for her………
WAKE UP FOLKS. Republicans are going to lose in 2008 if we dont get our act together and band together. Bashing Thompson weakens Romney, Bashing Romney weakens Rudy, bashing this one,, etc etc etc…….
BE REALISTIC ABOUT OUR CHANCES OF RECAPTURING THE WHITEHOUSE IN 08 – - THEY ARE EXTREMELY POOR.
OH, AND GET BEHIND RUDY!!!
July 13th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Tano,
“The real problem is not with abortion, it is with lying.”
You show something about liberals which is very telling. That is lies are far worse than abortions? Can’t we all just agree that abortions are a hideous ugly terrible thing?
Ugh, This is similar to Larry Flint – the pornographer who is now the moral authority of the left going on with his “hypocrisy” crusade. The demonstrates that to many liberals, hypocrisy is far worse than adultery just like lying is apparently worse than the hideous act of abortion.
It should be very clear why I can never accept the philosophies of liberalism so long as this is their line of reasoning.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
ThatLiberalGuy:
“Yeah, I’m actually with Tano here. ”
Now, don’t get mad when I tease you about being a liberal. Because you are one!
Regards,
July 13th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
It’s not just our insatiable polit-junkie hunger that makes a September announcement look painfully far off, it’s that not having a clear statement of Fred’s RTL position and a real sense of its role in his campaign – and not having him forced, live, in debates and appearances, to sink of swim by his answers – means that everyone gets to put whatever gloss they want on his statements. It’s the flip side of the grass-is-whatever-color-you-want-it-to-be syndrome that always helps lesser-known candidates – at first. Same goes for every other issue we care about.
It’s beginning to look like a pattern – like lack of substance IS the substance of Fred. Maybe he just seems to temporize, seems to back off, seems to change the subject (e.g., attorney privilege), seems to fob off responsibility to other people (staffers who checked whatever box or reporters who got him wrong), seems to have a conveniently foggy memory – but SEEMING (or is it acting?) is all that he does, because he’s, after all, not really IN and not really OUT, not really to be judged yet, though of course he still wants your money and your time. Even the appeal to federalism begins to look like yet another dodge.
Add the delayed announcement (again, it’s not that HE’s not ready, it’s that the campaign structure and expectations have to be “100%” managed), the coy neither in nor not in statements, and you get exactly the opposite of what Republicans and the country need right now and in the prospective campaign.
I was surprised to see Bill Bennett and others offer up a suggestion I also happened to make in passing the other day – regarding a joint appearance by the candidates on Iraq policy, displaying party unity and quieting any claims that they were beginning to run away from a responsible policy. I didn’t and don’t expect it to happen, but imagine if Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and perhaps a couple of others coordinated such a statement or appeared together. Suddenly, because it wouldn’t be appropriate to invite Fred in, the air that he’s sucked out of the race, and stolen from McCain and Romney especially, might start hissing back into it. The next debate may really look like that – IF it’s true about the 2-month countdown to announcement.
If you want to know why McCain is holding on, other than sheer stubbornness, maybe it’s because he believes that if he can just stay standing for a few weeks longer, conservatives who’ve bought Fred without even a test-drive might swing back to him in a fit of buyer’s remorse. Maybe it’s a faint hope. Maybe not as faint as we’ve been assuming.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I think if we looked at the top 4 candidates soley from the abortion andgle, McCain has the best and longest pro life record and Rudy has the worst. Fred and Mitt have mixed bags.
Regardless of Fred’s position in the past, he’s showd he’s ready to embrace the pro life movement and be their guy. Between his Senate voting record and his current position, that’s enough. His story about having kids and seeing the sonograms is also a heck of a lot more believeable than Romney’s meeting at a lab.
The pro life movement wants to retain their influence and access to the WH and Fred has shown he has no problem with that whereas Rudt has shown he doesn’t care about them at all and while he’s willing to throw them a few bones and mouth support, they won’t have nearly the same access and influence they’d have with Fred. If Rudy wins all we’ll hear about is “the evangelicals and the pro lifers have lost their grip on the party” and such. When Fred wins, we’ll all hear “the evangelicals and the pro lifers have shown once again why they control the party”. That’s what important.
Ironically, any attempt to torpedo Fred over abortion could only end up helping Rudy. So, Fred isn’t the ideal pro lifer, but then again, neither was Bush. If you remember Bauer and Keyes and other hard core pro lifers were after him in 2000. But Bush wa pro life enough and he had all the other attributes. Fred’s the same way.
Nice try, Romney supporters, but as they down south “that dog won’t hunt”
July 13th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Email from the National Right to Life Committee (Fred alert!)
National Right to Life Committee | July 8, 2007 | Karen Cross
Posted on 07/13/2007
It appears that there is an attempt to create confusion regarding former Senator Fred Thompson’s pro-life position.
You can go to National Right to Life’s website to see Senator Thompson’s voting record against abortion, euthanasia, and experimentation on unborn babies’ bodies. As you can see, Senator Thompson had an excellent pro-life voting record while in the U.S. Senate.
I am concerned that someone may be misleading you about his record. Regardless, I assure you it was not from National Right to Life. National Right to Life PAC supported Senator Thompson for the U.S. Senate in 1994 and 1996, and considered him to be a very pro-life Senator.
Senator Thompson has since reaffirmed his pro-life position. I am attaching a link to the statement he made to the National Right to Life Convention:
Fred Thompson’s statement to the National Right to Life Convention
Thank you for your interest and concern on this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Karen Cross
Political Director
National Right to Life Committee
512 10th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
P.S. Following are quotes by Senator Thompson:
“I think Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. And the way to address that is through good judges.” – “FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace,” FOX News, March 11, 2007
“I think the Supreme Court was absolutely right in this abortion decision, the… partial-birth abortion decision. The very idea that we could even have a debate over whether or not that atrocious activity should be alowable is very unfortunate, to say the least.” – “Hannity and Colmes,” Fox News, May, 4, 2007.
“I am pro-life. ” – “Hannity and Colmes,” Fox News, May, 4, 2007.
Now Get Over It.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Saying that “I am pro-life” does not make it so. He has repeatedly dodged the early term abortion issue recently.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
There is more to Thompson’s abortion record than your brief summary.
- He has always opposed Roe v. Wade.
- He has always favored restrictions on abortion.
- He has always opposed public funding for abortions
So let’s look at the rest of the story that you did not quote:
1993 article in the Memphis Commercial Appeal:
- he opposes federal funding for abortion.
- favors allowing states to impose limited restrictions on abortion, such as parental notification requirements for minors.
1994 National Political Awareness Test:
- A woman under the age of 18 should be required to notify a parent or guardian before having an abortion.
- States should be allowed to impose mandatory waiting periods before abortions are performed.
- Congress should eliminate federal funding for clinics and medical facilities that provide abortion services.
- Congress should eliminate abortion services from any federally funded health care plan.
1994 Republican Liberty interview:
- No public financing.
1996 questionnaire from Tennesseans for Choice:
- states should have the right to restrict abortion as they see fit.
- states should be allowed to impose various restrictions (i.e. parental notification, 24-hour waiting periods, etc.).
1997 letter to a constituent:
- he supported various restrictions on abortion.
2007 Sean Hannity interview:
- I’ve always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision, that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states.
2007 Fox News interview:
- Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. And the way to address that is through good judges.
I can provide sources for all of these statements if you wish.
Thompson is first and foremost a federalist – he believes that most decisions should be left up to the states. As President he would appoint the kind of judges and justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade as bad law, thereby returning decisons to the states.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Amen, Jim and xcamel. Fred has consistently voted pro-life… The National Right To Life group supports him firmly, and they HAVE interviewed him in depth on this subject. NARAL listed him as an enemy when he was in office… Fred helped shepherd Chief Justice John Roberts (who is no pro-choicer) through his hearings. I do not see what all the hoopla is about. He will OBVIOUSLY fight the good fight for the culture of life. And life is a very important issue to me. I have NO qualms voting for Fred Thompson. NONE of you can see what is in the man’s heart, so it is pointless to try to smear him, when his OFFICIAL record — HIS VOTING RECORD — is perfect. He did state that seeing his child’s sonogram made him even more pro-life, and as a new mom, I can completely understand that one. I have always been staunch on this issue, but when I was looking at my little girl’s beating heart on that screen, it was more powerful than anything I could ever have imagined.
Like a couple of others on here have mentioned, it is really shameful for we republicans to be tearing one another apart. Leave that for the liberals. These men are OUR candidates. One of them will represent us. It is shameful for us to tear each other to pieces, so someone like Hillary or the Breck Girl or Obama ends up winning. We should NOT eat our own. I am a strong Fred supporter, but I will vote for any of the front-runner republicans over any of those crazy liberals (who are all vehemently pro-abortion without question).
We are feeding them fuel by tearing each other down. We need to remember that in the end, we are all on the same team.
If Mitt says he has changed, I take him at his word. Fred says he is pro-life. I take him at his word. Rudy says he is pro-choice, and I take him at his word. What is so hard about any of that?
Fred’s supporters support him for many reasons. This is not the end all or be all. There is a war on Terror going on. Bush’s tax cuts will run out in a few years. There will likely be Supreme Court justice appointments. There are many issues to consider. For those of us who support Fred, he has the right answers/solutions. You will NOT find me trashing out YOUR guy though. You will only find me being positive about mine. That is the way it should be, folks. We should not be doing this to our own.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
MattC,
Combining FredP’s #42 list with your original list in this thread would make for a well balanced summary.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Just a note, I always hear about Fred shepherding John Roberts. That’s totally irrelevant. All it means is that he introduced him to some of his old buddies in the Senate and showed him around the Russell building.
Roberts was confirmed 78-22 and was never in danger of being defeated.
Rudy was just as vocal in his support for Roberts and he never gets any credit for it.
Ironically, tearing down Fred only helps Rudy who is far worse than Fred on abortion.
If Fred hadn’t jumped in back in April, Rudy would have Hillary like domination of the polls and be over 40% nationally by now,
If Fred ends up not jumping in or is hurt significantly by these attacks, Rudy’s chances at the nomination go way up.
Rudy hurt himself tremedously early on with abortion. If he had come out and simply taken a federalist line, attacked Roe on legal grounds and said that the state level is where this should be decide, he’d be much better off. His “It would be ok” at the 1st debate almost finished him off and quite frankly after that, I thought he’d drop off siginifucantly. It amazing that he hasn’t and he seems to have steadied the ship on it. For someone who’s known he was running for President since 9/12/01 and has also known since then that his position on abortion was his main hurdle, it was a breathtakingly stupid answer.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Alright, I only skimmed through the comments section, but I want to cover a few things. Firstly, if you look at his “record” in the Senate, you will find it to be much less impressive than you might think. On The Issues has three votes listed, one where he opposes cloning, one where he supports a partial-birth ban, and one where he supports keeping a ban on military base abortions. None of those are earth shattering, and all of those votes could still be cast by an abortion supporter.
Secondly, I noticed a comment on frederalism above. The problem is, federalism does not work with abortion, becuase there will be states that keep it leagal, and there will be organizations that pay for women to go to those states. In addition, the states that are likely to keep it legal are the states where a large number of abortions are performed. Federalism does not work with abortion.
Thirdly, can anyone prove to me that Fred Thompson is currently pro-life on a federal level?
Finally, Even if he is pro-life now, he has lied to the American Public about his past, and the last thing we need is another lying, deceptive leader like Clinton.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
ACTBlog,
As a Romney supporter I’m surprised you’d say that as Mitt is also a Federalist on abortion. He’s never called for a national ban and as far as I know, is on record opposing such a move. So, Fred’s federalist position on abortion is no different than Romney’s.
Also, does that mean the whole pro life movement is based on a lie? For years all we’ve heard is that overturning Roe won’t make abortion illegal and that it will be up to the states and that’s all we want. Now you’re saying that’s not enough and that the real goal is to ban it completely nationwide?
July 13th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Hasn’t the goal of the pro-life movement always been to ban it nation wide?
I don’t think frederalism will work on abortion, but I still believe that Romney is better on the issue because, at the very least, he has been honest with the public.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
How can Romney be better when their positions are exactly the same?
They both want to see Roe overturned
They both want states to have greater room to legislate
Neither of them supports the Human Life Amendment
Their positions are pretty much identical.
As of today, what is the difference between Fred’s abortion policy and Mitt’s?
July 13th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Jim,
Mitt has said that, on the state level, he favors bans of abortion except in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Fred hasn’t. Indeed, he seems to be pro-choice, vis-a-vis state legislation. And even if he isn’t currently, we have no evidence to set aside his past position. To be sure, practically speaking, it’s not terribly important what Romney and Fred think about abortion on the state level. But, luckily the pro-life movement is about more then practicality, and a man ought to get points for endorsing a more significant portion of the movement’s platform, regardless of the practical effects.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
I find it hard to believe that the abortion quotes posted are as you wrote: “all of his past statements and views (that I know about or could find).” Fred never once uttered a pro-life sentiment?
July 13th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Jim,
You wrote in #39:
“Fred isn’t the ideal pro lifer, but then again, neither was Bush.”
Two questions:
1. When did President Bush come out in support of first trimester abortions?
2. When did Bush say he never has and never would be for a law that criminalized young women who terminated a pregnancy?
Squeek,
In #43, you wrote:
“Fred’s supporters support him for many reasons. This is not the end all or be all.”
While you and many others who are staunch opponents of abortion might be OK with a candidate who is pro-choice through at least the first trimester, because you also value other redeeming qualities and attributes he possesses, I reckon you will soon find yourself in the minority among pro-life GOP primary voters who share your steadfast opposition to a right to the procedure.
Tommy says they’re not conducting such polls internally, but it’s only a matter of time before Team Fred will have to assess the damage to the SoCon base, and see just how much it’s offset by the gain from moderate RINOs and Independents who would then be receptive to Thompson.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
cwpete is being kind of cute, I guess, with his silly insults, but I’m probably the furthest right-wing on this site when it comes to economics (along with Nusrat). As far as defense goes, I’m pretty much in lock-step with the neo-cons in policy.
On economics, I’m like Milton Friedman; on defense, Christopher Hitchens; on social issues…sheesh, I’m a radical leftist on social issues. I gave you an overview of my political views: legalize absolutely everything and deregulate absolutely everything — except things that involve force. I’m a pro-freedom kind of guy. I also happen to hate terrorists and do not buy the bull that Islam is a religion of peace! So it’s in our national self-interest to be fighting the War on Terror.
How many times does it have to be explained to you, cwpete, that I do not profess to be a conservative? I’m a radical leftist on the social issues and a radical conservative on economics and defense. I’m an objective, neutral observer in political analysis. If criticizing Fred Thompson makes you a liberal: fine, I’m a liberal, have it your way.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
#49 — Jim — You forgot “They’ve both conveniently changed from pro-choice to pro-life as they prepared to run for the Presidency on the Republican side!”
July 13th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Fred Thompson is the worst of the bunch in my opinion. Lying to him has become routine. His standard answer when posed with uncomfortable questions is I have no recollection of that. Very telling.
I remember that when the first survey with the pro choice answers came out he blamed it on a staffer. The survey of course had his signature on it. Then a number of other surveys came out with the exact same pro choice answers.
Thompson is playing everybody for fools. He is no conservative. A moderate maybe. He hides his liberal views under the false banner of federalism.
That is the reason why he keeps postponing the announcement. He knows that under scrutiny his house of cards will collapse.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
The only reason that the SoCons are lining up behind Thompson is that they believe he is more of a SoCon than the other three. It can’t be because Fred has a better resume (far from it), more accomplishments (far from it), or a better leader (far from it). The fact is that if his SoCon credentials begin to crumble, so will he. Right now Fred is a “grass is greener” abstraction conjured up by those who can’t get over abortion. This is partly why it is taking so long for his campaign to enter the race (now August??). He is having a tough time answering these questions about his past and he needs to prepare a better spin machine. (Also, he needs to work out his qinks with going unscripted. Especially in a debate scenario. If he waits until August he conventiently misses the next debate).
July 13th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Aron,
You act as if abortion is the only thing that matters.
That’s not true and it never has been. Let’s look at the last 3 GOP nominees: Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43.
None of them were the most pro life nominee when they were nominated.
If abortion was all that mattered and the nomination went to they guy who was the most pro life, guys like Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan and others would have done much better.
How come guys like Brownback and Huckabee haven’t caught on despite the fact that both of them have far better pro life credentials than Mitt, Fred or McCain?
Yes, there is a group for whom this is the #1 issue, but they’re small and to quote Fred, they “never have been and never will be” the decisive factor in who gets the nomination.
The question that has to be asked is “are they pro life enough?” Will he grant us access? Can we trust him on judges? Will he sign bills like the PBA ban and BAIP act? Would he veto a bill passed by a dem congress to repeal the PBA ban?
It’s obvious from the support of the NRLC, Richard Land, Tony Perkins, and the idol-worship on FRedState and FRedRepublic, that these attacks won’t work. Thompson is their guy, and he knows it.
The other thing is that Thompson is nothing else if not an actor. He has people behind him that are pushing him and they’ll give him the script. He’ll read his lines perfectly.
Also, by getting all this out before he announces, when he does annnounce and Mitt tries to attack him on it in the fall and winter, he’ll pull the old “There you go again” line and brush it off.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Aron, the number of GOP Primary voters who wouldn’t vote for Thompson because of his abortion stance isn’t big enough to make any real difference.
Guys like Brownback and Huckabee would be doing much better if it was.
Look at the Fred worship on RedState and FreeRepublic, the statements of the NRLC and Richard Land, the positive press on National Review and the Weekly Standard, the support in Congress and the beltway, Fred is getting the band back together.
Romney and Rudy will soon be in the line of fire and there will be no way out for them.
PS:To be honest, the fact that Fred is listed as member of the Council on Foreign Relations upsets me more than his abortion positions.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
jim, the insiders poll by national review put Romney and Rudy far ahead of Fred Thompson. Those with experience know that Thompson will never be able to close the money gap. Come January the others will use their cash to take him out and that will be it for him. Just imagine that evangelical conservative in south carolina receiving that direct mail saying that Thompson lobbied for abortion. No chance for him there. Fred Thompson does well on the internet, basicaly because that’s the only place where he has been campaigning. But the election wont be decided at FreeRepublic or at RedState.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
MattC, please pardon my ignorance as to the Washington watchdog organizations. I would have supposed that the National Right to Life would concern itself with any legislative bill that has anything to do with the huamn life. Why would they count the CFR law as part of their grade? Are you sure Fred’s 33% is due to this? I think that is giving CFR a lot of weight – ALOT. There must be more to it. Does NRTL have the breakdown? If so, the link, please.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Fred Thompson is just great. I love that email from the National Right to Life Committee #40 (thanks xcamel)! Isn’t that just awesome of them? It’s pretty clear that Fred Thompson is pro-choice based on this organization’s endorsement. Fred is inspiring and really connects with me (and my family). When I read his articles, I can almost hear him speaking the words. I love how he’s doing so well in the polls and hasn’t even declared yet. What a positive leader! This is going to be a great election! God bless America.
Good luck Fred!
July 13th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Ah, c’mon now — you bunch of Fred-bashers are a batch of royal blowhards who cannot even face facts [presented to you] with an open mind–it would be easier to argue with the devil himself.
You tell me, you with the big mouths—would you, in your late fifties: give life to not one but two beautiful children, a daughter and a son, IF you were, in any degree, PRO-CHOICE???????? Hardly!
Get real — the “proof is IN the pudding”!!
July 13th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Do you all know what? Fred could have knock this discussion off by simply announcing his abortion position — both at federal and state level. His inability to do so far may speak volumes about his skills. I do like Fred a lot; in fact, I am seriously considering him as my second choice. But it bothers me hat he has done NOTHING. Let’s see, Rudy replied quickly to IAFF accusations. Mitt posted quickly a lot of things to against the accusers (McCain’s Status Quo claim, for instance). With all of this confusion, Fred could have simply say to this effect: My pro-life position in the past may seems erratic to many of you, but you can be reassured that I will, from this point on, take every chance to stand on the side of pro-life. Then poof, all of this problem will go away! His failure to resolve this does not speak well for him.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
cwpete charges,
“to many liberals, hypocrisy is far worse than adultery just like lying is apparently worse than the hideous act of abortion. ”
In a politician? Obviously.
I leave it to Jesus and you to make objective judgements about a man’s character, and worthiness to pass thru the pearly gates.
When it comes to assessing candidates for public office, hypocrisy and lying are absolutely fatal. I’m not talking here about the moral calculus – purely in a practical sense – if a politician is proven to have lied to me (especially on a matter of policy, not just some trivial persoanl matter), then how do I know what I am getting when I pull the lever for him? How can I tell what is really going on with my tax dollars or my country’s policies?
Just look at the Fred supporters here on this site. When the lobbying story first came out, they sullied themselves by blindly and instinctivly defending him – even to the point of doing the ol’ character assasination routine on those who made the claim, and it turns out he was lying to you. Do you enjoy this process? Is this how you want to spend the next four or eight years? Defending a guy who jerks you around like that?
July 13th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
j fraser,
If, 25 years from now, at the age of 60, I find myself fortunate enough to be marrying an intelligent, smoking hot woman who’s 35, and she wants to have kids…I’m making the RIGHT choice and it has nothing to do with my thoughts on abortion!
jim,
Methinks thou doth protest too much. Based on the überdefensive reactions from the denial-ridden j fraser, kerrhome, FredP, xcamel, paul, DLB63, Oink, jbr, LBruce, Tommy Oliver and Karen Cross of the NLRC and others, unless they are all one person using different aliases, I’d say Fred has a serious problem on his hands with a significant percentage of his pro-life supporters.
Bear in mind also that neither Brownback nor Huckabee have ever been perceived as potential, electable presidential candidates for the more pragmatic, political pro-lifers looking for a winner.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
That’s why you don’t think straight–you have no facts–you’re just bouncing around from pillar to pole–for heavens sake –like a bunch of ninnies–GO GET HIS STANCE on every subject, including this one which you have beaten to a bloody death, and you are still WRONG: READ IT for yourself , if you can–on:
http://www.imwithfred.com
http://www.draft.fredthompson.com
http://www.FreadheadsUSA.org
July 13th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
That’s why you don’t think straight–you have no facts–you’re just bouncing around from pillar to pole–for heavens sake –like a bunch of ninnies–GO GET HIS STANCE on every subject, including this one which you have beaten to a bloody death, and you are still WRONG: READ IT for yourself , if you can–on: try it , you might like it!!!!
http://www.imwithfred.com
http://www.Draft.FredThompson.com
http://www.FredHeadsUSA.org
GO FRED GO–’08
July 13th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
I just love that email from the National Right to Life Committee #40 (thanks xcamel)!
July 13th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Read Fred Thompson’s own words:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/018199.php
July 13th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Aron,
I try to keep it respectful and above the fray with regards to fellow contributors. I tease occasionally, but don’t question any of my fellow staff contributors.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
How about this news! “Yeah, they [Hillary supporters] have Fred in their cross hairs, for sure.” Just found it here: http://newsbusters.org/node/13944 Isn’t this just great stuff! Fred Thompson’s nearing candidacy is just so exciting. I can’t believe how nervous so many people are. Great work Fred!
July 13th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
excuse me. Question is the wrong word. I don’t bash any of my fellow contributors.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
1st of all. On the 1991 thing. If there is proof, then let’s see it. There is not only no transactions. There are no receipts, no files, no signatures, no nothing. Just their accusations. Nothing else.
2nd- Let’s look at the context of your arguments. “Hannity saved Thompson.” OK, let’s magically figure otu what he said before he said it. That’s really gonna get a guilty verdict.
3rd-”I’d say Fred has a serious problem on his hands with a significant percentage of his pro-life supporters.”
Why? Cause you said something that made his supporters on the internet mad? He’s in trouble cause the internets are in full swing on a Friday night! He’s in real trouble now. please.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
TLG:
“cwpete is being kind of cute, I guess, with his silly insults,”
What insult was that? Calling you a liberal? C’mon man – lighten up some. That’s no insult as it was not derogative or personal. Just calling a spade a space that’s all.
I consider myself to the right of most on economics and defense so I’m with you there. I’m just amazed at your social liberalism – that’s all. I classify libertarians into two types. One that just doesn’t care about anything and another who just wants to be left alone with little or no restrictions so they can do things without fear of the law.
I actually do have a small libertarian steak in me (maybe very small), but I realize that America needs to be the super power both economically and militarily in order for us to continue enjoying our standards of living. I don’t see how Libertarianism maintains the standards & freedoms that most take for granted with their isolationist leanings.
You say you are Libertarian but also very strong on defense? Most libertarians I know would have a problem with that. As a Republican, I value individual responsibility, lower taxes, a limited government (as I do recognize the need to have limited gov’t), and a strong national defense.
I also happen to be a social conservative. And as such, I have traditional family values (gasp!). I know those same traditional family values have helped contribute to make America great. I fear that losing those values will force this country into a decline. I will always defend those values in any forum, anytime, and anywhere.
I appreciate discussing these issues with both you & Tano. It is enlightening and fun. Just don’t take any of this too personally. If this site were full of posters who just like me then it would not be a good site.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Yes, cwpete, there is some variation in libertarianism just as there is in conservatism! There’s a reason that I side with the Republicans exclusively and not with actual Libertarian candidates or Democrats.
I am actually a small-l libertarian, but I have it capitalized in my name for aesthetic purposes. Maybe that will clear up some confusion here.
I have nothing against traditional family values (except in regards to religion, inasmuch as God does not exist). It’s a fantastic life for some, and can be a great way to live one’s life. The key words there being “some” and “can.” Unlike conservatives and liberals, I don’t think that I know how to best run everyone’s life.
I don’t think “calling a spade a spade” is appropriate in regards to calling me a liberal when these are my positions (I just uploaded this to my Facebook, which is linked from my MySpace, which is linked in my name
)
Economics: Deregulate all industry, institute voluntary taxation gradually, get rid of all government handouts (yes, including our precious Social Security and Medicare), allow all trade freely.
Government size and social regulation: Get rid of every federal-level department except State, Treasury, and Defense; reinstate states’ rights as defined under the 10th Amendment, end the illegal Mexican invasion of the United States, end compulsory support for public education via voluntary taxation to create a business-like standard for schools. Abolish McCain-Feingold.
Social issues: Legalize gay marriage, polygamy, prostitution, all drugs and gambling. Keep abortion legal. No government-endorsed religion whatsoever. Lower the drinking age to 18. Get the government completely out of social and moral issues.
Defense issues: Stay in Iraq until we win, step up the operation, demand benchmarks from the Iraqi government, end our altruistic vision for the Middle East and focus on national security. Ban the draft permanently, no matter what the conditions.
Overall: The initiation of force shall be banned. Government’s only proper role is to stop the initiation of force.
On two out of three issues, cwpete, I’m on your side. Plus, I don’t really care that much about social issues, even if they’re fun and easy to argue. They just seem so trivial in an age of impending socialism and the threat of terrorism.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
cwpete,
Like so many social conservatives, you really seem to misunderstand, profoundly, the real issues at play.
I was hoping that TLG’s explanation might light some bulbs in your head, but I cant be sure of that.
So let me just lay out one point you seem not to get.
The issue is not the “family values” per se. I am sure you got great ones in your personal life, and that sould cause me to respect you greatly as a human being. The issue though, is whether you, or anyone, should sieze the mighty power of government to impose those values on society.
Freedom comes at a cost – and I am not referring here just to the cost in blood on battlefields. It comes with an emotional cost as well. To live in a free society means that you have to put up with people who live by different values. At some point, when push comes to shove, you either tolerate the existence of people with other values (you stand for freedom) or you try to use the power of government to get them to act the way you think they should (you become an authoritarian, and an enemy of freedom).
It is the same calculus as with freedom of speech. The concept has no meaning if you are only willing to tolerate speech that you agree with.
The collective people, through government, have a right to constrain freedom when one persons exercise of freedom tramples on other people’s exercise of freedom. Thats where TLG goes way overboard. His seemingly religous attachment to some purified ideology would result in a world in which the powerful would trample on everyone else, because powerful people with unconstrained freedom run roughshod over the rest of us (perhaps one of the most obvious lessons from human history). This is the great Randian RW wet-dream world, but it would be a horrible one.
But you, and the socons, go to the other extreme – trying to use governmental power to shape how people live. You and your movement will be opposed to the death by freedom loving people everywhere, always.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:03 am
TLG, if I’m understanding correctly you’ve got no problem with fraud, false advertising or perjury since no initiation of force is involved?
July 14th, 2007 at 12:07 am
TLG writes,
“Defense issues: Stay in Iraq until we win, step up the operation, demand benchmarks from the Iraqi government, end our altruistic vision for the Middle East and focus on national security. Ban the draft permanently, no matter what the conditions.
Overall: The initiation of force shall be banned. Government’s only proper role is to stop the initiation of force.”
I guess the obvious question is: how do you deal with these myriad contradictions?
Stay in Iraq till we win? Win what?
Cant be the realization of this “altruistic vision” since you urge us to abandon that.
Our own national security?
Can you explain how our national security is being aided by the depletion of our military, in a civil war with no obvious end in sight, that has only created a failed state now being flocked to by new recruits to terror?
Oh, and how do we “stay till we win”, manpower-wise? With what Army?
Seems pretty clear that serious force reductions will have to occur by next spring for manpower reasons alone.
And you wont allow a draft….
And overall, ban the initiation of force? But continue this war?
Hey, I sympathize…trying to make an abstract, extreme ideology fit the messy world is a problem, but it is very much your problem, and I dont see you pulling it off very well here.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:11 am
“institute voluntary taxation gradually”
This is my favorite though!
Sign me up !
July 14th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Tano, morality is a community concern (not an individual one). As such individuals should conform (to a limited extent) to their communities’ moral standards or leave so the community can remain healthy. It’s selfish for an individual to destroy social stability and security for an entire community.
That’s a totalitarianism of individuals over the rights and welfare of the majority. It destroys trust and quality of life because of selfish individuals.
I’d prefer that local communities are allowed to enforce moral standards to encourage those that would damage the social order to leave.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Tano,
“The issue though, is whether you, or anyone, should sieze the mighty power of government to impose those values on society.”
But isn’t that what politics is all about? Do you not recognize that liberals also do this? Republicans can’t use the government to carry out their “values” but Democrats can? Which is the party that uses activist judges to do just what you quoted above?
Now forgive me but I’m going to use your terminology:
Like so many social liberals, you really seem to misunderstand, profoundly, the real issues at (play regarding abortion). That is – there is another person involved who gets terminated. That is one very minor detail that makes your “freedom” analogy seem very ridiculous to me. It is not like the big bad boogey SoCons are forcing you to wear pink shoes here. To many, this is a very serious matter. It is a shame this is so trivial to the liberal left.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:42 am
econ grad stud — 75 — There is “force” in a sense, of misleading a person, of drawing them with false information. One cannot exercise freedom with misrepresentation. It is a proper role of government to intervene in such a case.
Tano — You seem to misunderstand the “initiation” of force. Once a country’s government has initiated force, they lose all moral authority to claim protection from force. (Every nation on Earth is at fault, here.) That’s not to say that there aren’t varying degrees of force — certainly, the US has more moral authority than Iraq did — but once a country has initiated force, there is no legitimate reason for a country that initiates no force (or less) to invade and correct the situation to their requirements. The goal, for example, in Iraq, will be to institute a government that will not be a safe haven for those who would seek to use force against us.
No, there are no contradictions. No initiation of force goes both ways. It’s not the initiation of force to force someone to stop using force on another person. The end goal is to stop all force, and that can’t be done without force in the case of say, murderers, rapists, etc. One has to use force to stop force. But the end goal is to stop the one who started the chain in the first place, which is why we have a police force and a 2nd Amendment. If that seems a little long-winded, I can try to re-phrase it.
econ grad stud — Irrational selfishness — that which is objectively at the expense of others — is part of the whole initiation-of-force bit. Rational selfishness, or enlightened self-interest, a term I’m sure you’re familiar with, is what libertarianism and capitalism promotes. Mutually advantageous and mutually voluntary exchanges.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:45 am
EGS,
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own dictionary.
To try and shoehorn in the term “totalitarian” to describe people who want to live free is Orwellian on sterioids.
Totalitarianism is a system of government control extended to all aspects of social, and personal life. Thats what the “total” refers to. It has no application whatsoever to an individual who lives in peace, but under different value systems, than his neighbors.
Morality is a community concern if you make it one. The communists, and other totalitarians would agree with you – personal morality was very much a community concern in their eyes. Some of the values that they expoused were perfectly reasonable ones, others werent. The real problem was with their belief that they, the government, had the right to use thier power to enforce those values.
Whether or not it is “selfish” to “destroy” social stability is arguable. One could argue that most or all of the progress that is made in society comes at the urging of “selfish” people who shake up the established order. The real issue though is whether the community has a right to use governmental power (which, in the end, comes down to the use of force – lethal force if necessary) to outlaw this “selfishness”.
“I’d prefer that local communities are allowed to enforce moral standards to encourage those that would damage the social order to leave.”
Well, thats what you have your own home for – its your castle. Or your gated community.
But we are talking here about policies for the public square.
Thats the cost of freedom that I was referring to up above. You just dont get to engineer society at large, not in a free country.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:46 am
cwpete — *My* politics are certainly not about seizing the government to impose my values on society. My politics are to make the government leave people alone so they can live by their own individually chosen values. Stop thinking in terms of left and right — they’re both like that. But there is a third way.
And can we please stop equating fetuses to people? It’s one of the horribly dirty tricks that anti-abortion activists use. They’ll put up a picture of a 2-year old baby and plaster a slogan like “STOP KILLING ME.” If they actually found a picture of a two-month old fetus, the emotional impact wouldn’t be so great because a fetus barely resembles a human and has no autonomy whatsoever. The anti-abortion arguments are all arbitrary (amazing alliteration, ah?) and emotionally based. Needless to say, no autonomous, healthy-looking baby is being aborted.
PS — I’m only for abortion until the fetus — then a baby — could live outside of the mother’s womb. Just a clarification. Partial-birth abortion is simply barbaric.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:48 am
“institute voluntary taxation gradually”
Hmnn.. Maybe that libertarian steak in me just got a bit wider..
July 14th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Oh, God, Tano, I’m so sick of the phrase “Orwellian” being tossed around!
Can we please place a moratorium on all references to George Orwell, “Speaking Truth to Power” and “Dissenting”? Just for the sake of eliminating cliches?
And Tano is right about selfish people redefining society — In econ grad stud’s eyes, gays should just shut up and stay in the closet because most people aren’t gay; the blacks in the sixties should have shut up and stayed segregated, since the majority wanted it; women in the 1920’s should have shut up and stopped whining about voting, since it was “tradition,” etc.
It’s never about the rights of man to you people. You see others as members of groups, as little puzzle pieces to form your own personal image of society. I want people to be free. Freedom, sadly, isn’t too popular anymore.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:51 am
PS — A little pre-emptive action:
To those who would say — Nobody would pay taxes under a system of voluntary taxation –
Millions of people are willing to set aside three dollars to publicly fund the campaigns of politicians annually, even as they claim to hate the system. Tens of millions of dollars are collected! Are you honestly going to say that people wouldn’t be willing to set aside money for things like a police force, the military, schools, Social Security? All of those can stay, as long as no force is involved. The government is free to compete in the marketplace just like private companies are. But with voluntary taxation, RESULTS will have to come in for the public to fund it.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:58 am
cwpete,
“Which is the party that uses activist judges to do just what you quoted above?”
Republicans.
Hey, I know this violates all you hear from the propagandists, but it actually is true.
Any definition of “activism” by the judiciary is based on the propensity of judges substituting their opinon for those of the legislatures. Analyses of just this question have been done. Turns out that the justices that are most likely to strike down laws are the conservative ones (esp. Thomas). The least likely are the liberal ones.
You cant really believe everything you hear on the radi
“Like so many social liberals, you really seem to misunderstand, profoundly, the real issues at (play regarding abortion). That is – there is another person involved who gets terminated. That is one very minor detail that makes your “freedom†analogy seem very ridiculous to me. It is not like the big bad boogey SoCons are forcing you to wear pink shoes here. To many, this is a very serious matter. It is a shame this is so trivial to the liberal left.”
Its not that it is “trivial”. It is simply that we dont agree with your premise. I do not consider an embryo to be a “person”. Nor have most people, until it became a wedge concept by which one could argue for more social control.
No society has ever counted embryos as individuals in the census. We dont give families tax exemptions for carrying embryos. We dont celebrate conception days, we celebrate birthdays.
The path to personhood starts with a cell, one that is incontrovertably part of a woman’s body. And it ends with birth, a new individual. When does “ownership” of this developing cell(s) pass from the woman to society at large? That is a poltical question. You are clearly on the side of having the “community” sieze control at the earlist possible moment. I am more resepctful of the rights of the already-existing individual.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:00 am
I’m sick of activist judges on all sides (though liberals really do seem to be the bulk of them. Kelo is my #1 concern). I wish we had a Supreme Court full of Ron Pauls.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:00 am
TLG:
“And can we please stop equating fetuses to people?”
Fetus is an excellent term used by abortionists to justify the act as it cheapens / lowers the human life factor which they’d all like to ignore. I could never do what you ask because fetus are people. And no matter how big or small, a person is entitled to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness as prescribed by our declaration of Independence form Great Britain. This applies to all mankind (black, white, short, tall, born, & unborn) by way of unalienable Rights (yes that means GOD – gasp!). It is all right here:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
An unborn baby, a child, and a fully grown adult all have the same number of *human* chromosomes in their DNA. This is a FACT. No seriously, how can anyone state that a fetus should not be considered human? A fetus is human, just like a child is a human.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:10 am
No, fetuses are not people. It should lower the human life factor because it’s not a human yet. It can’t live without the support of its mother’s organs. It can’t survive for a minute on its own. It is completely and utterly dependent and cannot perform a single function of a regular human being. If it *ever* achieves autonomy, it is entitled to life. But a fetus has no entitlement, and certainly has no right to leech off of another human being, whether that other human being created it or not.
Our Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.
Oh, God, please tell me you knew that.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:10 am
TLG,
“Millions of people are willing to set aside three dollars to publicly fund the campaigns of politicians annually, even as they claim to hate the system.”
That is downright silly. First off, the $3 set aside does not mean you pay $3 more – your tax payment is the same whether you check the box or not, so it is not an example of a volutary payment. Secondly, and rather obviously, the millions of people who check that box are not the same ones who hate the system.
“Are you honestly going to say that people wouldn’t be willing to set aside money for things like a police force, the military, schools, Social Security?”
Oh, this is brilliant! Lets run the police department like a business! Lets make it a subscription service! Thems that got a lot of money get really great 24/7 protection! Thems without just gotta rely on that good ol’ second amendment, eh?
Maybe you should move to Iraq, or Somalia! I hear they have just this type of a system there.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Tano,
So you say “Turns out that the justices that are most likely to strike down laws are the conservative ones (esp. Thomas)”
I say liberal justices are most likely to legislate from the bench which fits the definition of judicial activism.
However, justices are completely within their right strike down existing laws as unconstitutional if they deem it so – that is their job.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:14 am
OK, OK, I stand corrected on 90 and the $3 thing; I wasn’t thinking. That was dumb.
However, you misunderstood me regarding the police. It wouldn’t be pay-on-demand. You’d pay the government to uphold it. It would be the same as it is now, essentially.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:18 am
TLG:
“It can’t live without the support of its mother’s organs. It can’t survive for a minute on its own. It is it hacompletely and utterly dependent and cannot perform a single function of a regular human being.”
The same can be said of an infant or a young child who is still breast feeding. As an individual (no matter how small) the person is entitled to a *chance* at life. The abortion act takes a way that chance. I’m not saying there is a guarantee of life or the pursuit of happiness, but a chance which abortion denies.
Yes, I know the D of Ind. is not a “legal” document. I would not respect it more if it were a legal document.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:20 am
Tano:
“Well, thats what you have your own home for – its your castle. Or your gated community.
But we are talking here about policies for the public square.
Thats the cost of freedom that I was referring to up above. You just don’t get to engineer society at large, not in a free country.”
Just to clarify, I don’t support federal power being used to uphold community morality. America isn’t a community it’s a binding contract between states with a bit of patriotic glue.
I support complete state and local authority being used for the purpose of upholding morality. The constitution makes it clear that internal state power is much broader than federal power.
Massachusetts had an established Church for decades after it ratified the constitution. I’ve got no problem with states enforcing their moral standards.
If people have a problem they can leave. That allows individual freedom while also giving communities freedom to uphold their social order.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:21 am
“If they actually found a picture of a two-month old fetus, the emotional impact wouldn’t be so great because a fetus barely resembles a human and has no autonomy whatsoever.â€
http://www.takegreatpictures.com/content/images/tip1_5134.jpg
On a personal note, when I first saw my daughter’s ultrasound pictures, my life was changed forever.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:24 am
“If people have a problem they can leave!” Oh Jesus, talk about an it’s-my-ball argument.
And cwpete — Would you in favor of banning recreational sex and male masturbation? Think of all that sperm that dies, denying all of those potential babies a chance at life!
A young child who is still breast feeding is DEFINITELY autonomous! He can perform all necessary functions of a human being without the assistance of his mother. Things that come from the outside would yes, have to come from the outside. But that’s true of all humans. By your definition, I’m not autonomous because I have to buy food from the grocery store. But all babies are autonomous, strictly speaking.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Sorry, that last pic is a 4 month fetus, I believe-the site won’t open.
This one is an 8 week fetus.
http://www.ursenbach.net/govwatcher/pics/2month.jpg
July 14th, 2007 at 1:27 am
bjalder: Right, because that was your daughter. It struck you that you then had a daughter (and you WANTED a daughter, by the way).
But surely you can agree with me that the emotional impact is intensified by using a picture of a cute, smiling toddler rather than an ugly, fleshy fetus?
July 14th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Yeah, to be honest, that 2-month old fetus looks like one of the Grey Aliens of conspiracy theory lore. That’s not a forehead, it’s a seven-head, and it looks like it has paws and a tail. Doesn’t quite have the same emotional impact as:
http://www.webphotoschool.com/all_lessons/portrait_indoor/Taking_Professional_Portraits_of_your_Child_at_Home/1129945064_350×350_header.jpg
But cute little toddler isn’t the one being aborted — Grey alien fetus is!
July 14th, 2007 at 1:31 am
Place a baby on a street corner and see how “autonomous” it is.
In fact put my 80 year old father (I’m the last of 8 children) on street corner and the situation is similar.
If a body might be dead, do you have a problem if I stab it?
A fetus might be an individual (at some stage) but that doesn’t matter?
July 14th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Thanks for sharing that link bjalder26.
Looks like we have here fully developed arms, legs, fingers, toes, facial features etc. Like I said earlier, the unborn child still has 46 *human* chromosomes just like any born person. It amazes me how some can stare at the sun denying it’s existence.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:35 am
econ grad stud — A reasonable cut-off can come at the point where one can survive outside of the womb without any assistance from another person’s organs. Autonomy as I am defining it is when a person only need rely on himself and inanimate resources. A baby fits that bill, a fetus does not. Your 80-year-old father does, an embryo does not.
I do have a problem if you stab it. I have a problem if you stab a fetus, too. Like putting an animal to sleep, the abortion should be humane.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Another reasonable cutoff could be when their heart starts beating or when brain waves begin.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Why should abortion be humane, TLG?
July 14th, 2007 at 1:37 am
Seems that no one wants to respond to my question:
Why shouldn’t we ban male masturbation and recreational sex? All of those sperm killed off never had a fighting chance. In the words of econ grad stud, it “might be an individual (at some stage) but that doesn’t matter?”
July 14th, 2007 at 1:37 am
econ grad stud, because — correct me if I’m wrong, I could be — a fetus can feel pain.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:38 am
TLG:
“And cwpete — Would you in favor of banning recreational sex and male masturbation? Think of all that sperm that dies, denying all of those potential babies a chance at life!”
It takes 46 human chromosomes to constitute a human being. A sperm or an egg only has 23 each. Together they make 46 ie – one human being per the wonderful sex ed I got in the 2nd grade. That statement is ridiculous.
Also, there are many adults disabled etc. You make a good point, who amongst us is truly autonomous? Who the heck should to decide what is or what is not? Just live & let live.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:38 am
TLG,
Your police funding is still dumb. Why would anyone pay if they dont have to? Let the others pay. Thats called, human nature.
In the end, no one pays. Or very few. And the resulting police force is unable to do very much.
And so, them with money, hire their own protection.
Why would someone who can afford private protection want to pay into a system where their contributions are going to be much higher than otherwise, given the number of people who dont pay. They would be asked to subsidize those that dont pay. So they will say, obviously, rationally, screw that – I will just hire my own.
So it ends up being a private milita world anyway.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:40 am
I think if we were used to seeing 8 week old fetus, we would think of them as babies. Since they’re in the womb during that stage of development though, some people don’t have sentimental attachments to them.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:40 am
TLG:
Please explain to me what a “humane” abortion is?
July 14th, 2007 at 1:42 am
I wonder, is PETA against abortion?
July 14th, 2007 at 1:43 am
cwpete — Live and let live!? That sounds like some crazy libertarian speak. As for the 23+23 — What? And never give the sperm a chance to get to the other 23?
Poor potential fetus/human/individual.
Tano — As it happens, I work at a direct mail processing company (I’m 17, give me a break, haha). I see and process thousands of small donations ($1-$100) given to tens of charities daily. And that’s just me in one day! — just one mail processing unit goes through hundreds of thousands of checks annually.
It seems, bizarrely enough (!) that people *already* give money voluntarily to causes they support, even after having 20-40% of their money taken away by the government. Imagine what they’d give to worthy causes WITHOUT having that money pilfered away!
July 14th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Does anybody who criticized Romney for placing his dog in a carrier on top of his car have any right to be pro-abortion?
July 14th, 2007 at 1:43 am
My parents’ Church (they’re ultramontane latin-mass Catholics) would say that in that case the issue isn’t with life (as the genetic material isn’t joined yet).
They’d say the issue is with having sex without allowing the possibility for God to cause recreation. “thou shall not cast thy seed upon a stone”
My wife and I use birth control (rhythm method lingering Catholicism?) so I’m not going to make that argument.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:45 am
bjalder — I did *not* criticize Romney for placing his dog in a carrier. I laughed at him hysterically and thought he was a total boob for bringing the story up. He’s a gaffe machine, quite honestly.
cwpete — I’m not an abortionist, but I imagine it would involve a form of euthanasia.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Oh, so the sperm only meets the egg when God wants it to. So God intervenes in human affairs?
July 14th, 2007 at 1:47 am
cwpete,
It takes a lot more than just having 46 chromosomes to make a person.
And, of course, I am sure that you wouldnt really want to use “perfect chromosomes’ as a standard would you? Free to abort embryos with chromosomal abnormalities?
Chromosomes are just very long strings of DNA. And DNA is just a chemical whose parts can serve as a blueprint for making proteins. These proteins have to be made, they have to interact, a gazillion things need to happen in order to make a person.
The choice of conception as a defining moment, an event, rather than the start of a proces, is totally arbitrary. Well, not really arbitrary – it is chosen purposefully to advance the goal of establishing societal control over women, at the earlist possible moment.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Tano & TLG:
If such funding were set up similar to how the presidential campaign (where you are paying it anyway), then one may have a bit more say as to what programs their tax dollars go toward.
Personally, I don’t mind funding prisons, law enforcement, and military. Others may want to allocate a greater percentage of their tax dollar toward social security or other programs. Elected officials “represent” us with most of these decisions, but I would not be against some more control to the taxpayer to a small extent for some issues.
This is one reason why I favored privatized social security with a small % of what I was already paying anyway.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:48 am
TLG, by your standard fetal individuality starts earlier each year as medicine makes it possible for premature babies (as I was) to live.
If you claim that doesn’t count then why should my 80 year old father who requires oxygen be considered an individual?
July 14th, 2007 at 1:49 am
OK, Tano, I agreed with you until your final line, which is a strange little conspiracy theory.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:51 am
econ grad stud — Certainly. The advances of medicine create fantastic opportunities for life. But a two-month old fetus can certainly not live on its own.
Um, no, your eighty-year-old father who requires an oxygen [tank] is completely autonomous. Since we’re going by my standard, I also noted inanimate objects. Unless an oxygen tank is a living thing, your father is autonomous.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:52 am
TLG:
“Oh, so the sperm only meets the egg when God wants it to.”
At least once.
“So God intervenes in human affairs?”
Umm, I know you’re an atheist but haven’t you read the Bible just as literature or to try to understand your fellow citizens?
July 14th, 2007 at 1:54 am
So let me get this right, TLG.
You’d leave it up to judges to determine whether a woman’s fetus could survive outside the womb with medical assistance after an induced pregnancy (and hence would be saved)…
Or whether it couldn’t and thus could be aborted?
July 14th, 2007 at 1:55 am
TLG, I didn’t mean you.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:56 am
econ grad stud — The thing is, once you say that God intervenes in human affairs, you open up a monster-sized Pandora’s Box for pro-atheist arguments. So convenient that God never intervenes in human affairs when it comes to say, stopping hurricanes from ravaging coastal cities, or, um, stopping tsunamis from devastating millions of people, or stopping horrible despots from coming into power.
The Bible is pretty shoddy literature, though, I must say. I enjoy Pslams and some of the Song of Solomon, though.
I was raised a Christian. I served a lector, was confirmed, sang at church services, was baptized, and participated in youth activities at my church. I’ve only been an atheist for about a year. My grandmother is a strong Christian and we’ve had talks over this all. I understand Christianity perfectly well.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:57 am
Tano,
It is clear that you and I have very different definitions as to what constitutes an human being. You fail to say how a being who has 46 human chromosomes is somehow not a human being.
Most abortions are performed on normal, healthy babies, by white middle class women here in the US. I certainly would not call a down syndrome or fragile X non human. The context of my discussion here is for normal healthy babies.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Normal healthy babies? What, so … fetuses … strike that … BABIES … with disabilities aren’t entitled to life, then? Screw ‘em! Abort ‘em away!
July 14th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Nighty night folks.
I’m going to read me some Songs of Solomon before I retire (which is non-inspired writing).
Got a kick out of that one TLG:
Songs of Solomon Chapter 7 your favorite?
July 14th, 2007 at 2:06 am
cwpete is restricting the argument for clarities sake. Reading comprehension please.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:06 am
No TLG, that is not what was said. Please re-read my #126:
“I certainly would not call a down syndrome or fragile X non human.”
July 14th, 2007 at 2:08 am
cwpete, the Song of Solomon may not be inspired but it is inspiring (on that note I’ve got to say goodnight to my wife).
July 14th, 2007 at 2:09 am
econ grad stud — Fine, fine, point taken. (Notice I’m the only one here who EVER rescinds false statements?)
I just think Song of Solomon is decent poetry, cwpete; I’m not in agreement with its messages or anything.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:18 am
cwpete,
Lets be precise with the language, ok?
Babies are human. Fetus is human. Embryo is human. Sperm is human. Unfertilized egg is human.
Its all human, if it is part of humans. Being human is not the issue by which we can make distinctions.
Same with “life”. Everything in the process that we are discussing partakes of the process of life.
Babies are alive, the fetus is alive, embryos are alive, sperm is alive, unfertilized eggs are alive.
Tumors are alive too, fwiw.
There is no origin of life. Life is a process. Life had (effectivly) one origin, 3.5 billion years ago. Every being, every bacteria, every cell that ever was all partook of the process of life – an unbroken chain of cell division and metabolism.
The issue is not with whether something is human or alive. The issues is whether this live human thing is a person, an individual. Personhood or individuality simply do not have an on-off, black and white, distinguishable starting point. The development of an individual or a person is a process. You can choose to start describing that process wherever you want – the gleam in the eye, the act itself, conception, first division, implantation, the embryo-fetal transition, or birth itself. At each step in the process, one comes closer to personhood, a new individual. The process is not completed till birth.
The decision as to when we should recognize that some threshold has been passed, in our moral equation, is an entirely human judgement call – it is not biologically determined. Different moral traditions have different answers. Different moral traditions have had different answers at different times in those traditions. Its a personal decision that one makes with ones own moral compass, or with the acceptance of whatever moral guidance one chooses to accept.
The real issue here – when to recognize some threshold in law is a whole nother matter.
As a nation that has high respect for the rights of individuals, we believe that the default assumption is that the collective – implemented through government, should leave people alone. The Constitution sets out the powers of government, and they are limited. When the society, through government, interferes with the individual’s life – especially when it entails what is going on inside thier body, there needs to be a very compelling reason.
It really comes down to the question of whether your moral and religous beliefs should be adopted by the government and imposed on those who do not share those beliefs.
You are free in this country to practice your religion – to impose upon yourself the standards of whatever religous tradition that you choose. So do I. You do not have the right to impose yours on me.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:18 am
Oh, haha. Yeah, I just re-read 126. Yeah, reading comprehension indeed. Oops. Many apologies!
July 14th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Well, Tano, as much as I agree with your post: you, as an economic liberal, are hardly one against imposing views on other people through the power of the government.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:27 am
What is personhood? Link-> http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-B-1-personhood.html
July 14th, 2007 at 2:36 am
TLG,
Well, I too need to go off now, so I will be brief. I’m sure we will have chances to continue this.
I support a certain amount of government regulation of the economic sphere because I recognize that regulation serves a policing function – without regulation the powerful will oppress the weak.
Being oppressed, ripped off, dumped on, poisoned, etc. by private forces is contrary to the notion of living free.
A democratic government can regulate the public sphere in such a manner as to insure maximal freedom for the most number of people. If you greatly reduce the power of a democratic government, you do not reduce the existence of poewr in society – you just put it in unaccountable hands.
Thats the problem I see with your type of libertarianism – it seems to ignore the fact that government is not the only source of power in society. In fact, a democratic government is actually the only form of power that the people have any voice in. Take away the government, and you go back to the world of might makes right – the oppresion of the weak by the powerful.
The pre-civil-war South is a great example. A government that gave “freedom” to the people to such an extent that it could not, nor did it wish to, prevent private citizens from enslaving people. Look through history, or even in some places in the world today, and you see what minimal government actually means. Oppressive rule by private power.
Anyway, enough for now….
July 14th, 2007 at 2:47 am
1) How, in a laissez-faire capitalist system, do the strong oppress the weak?
2) What incentive could a company possibly have to promote fraudulent goods or rip off a customer? By the way — capitalism reduces prices through competition. This is why gas prices always remain relatively equal between companies and could not possibly sell below that level. If gasoline can be sold for three dollars a gallon with a profit of fifty cents to the gallon, sure, AC&T might start selling it at $3, but who would go to AC&T if Sunoco will charge $2.80? And then Sheetz may charge $2.60…and eventually it stabilizes until companies are making, really, as little profit as they can on something. Record profits right now only reflect increased demand. They do not show people being ripped off. This happens in *all* areas of commerce, and gives consumers the lowest prices.
3) In a capitalist system, the power lies with ‘the people.’ People choose what they want to buy; companies simply react to that. It’s a mutually advantageous system — “You give me something I want and I will give you something you want.” Private companies can’t force a useless or trivial product upon a free citizenry — only government can do that.
4) The pre-Civil War South was *not* a laissez-faire capitalist society! The kind of system that I advocate would never have allowed slavery in the first place. Slaves were mostly kept through ‘tradition’ and no alternatives were offered. But this mindless tradition kept them from seeing that slavery is economically inefficient. A typical slave would only do enough work to keep him from being hurt or killed. Why do extra work when none is required? Paid labor gives more of an overall profit, with a greater productivity level. It’s not an accident that the freer North had a stronger and more advanced economy than the South. Their superior technology enabled them to win the Civil War, making up for their lack of passion.
5) Can you please give an example of where “minimal government” and a laissez-faire capitalist system exists? (Answer: No, because none exists.)
July 14th, 2007 at 3:44 am
TLg,
My argument is not against capitalism. It is against laissez-faire capitalism.
I wonder if you really understand what that term means.
It means no governmental interference with private business.
Go to any failed state in the world, where there is minimal or no government (Somalia, for instance) and you have thriving capitalism – you have a free market – a really free market. How do you think people live there? They freely excahnge goods. There is no government to interfere.
Look at the situation in China today. ALthough it is an authoritarian government, it has made a conscious decision to let free enterprise flourish. So the irony is that there is little effective government regulation of economic activity. And poisoned food and pharmaceuticals. And all manner of environmental hell – dumping poisons into the water and air, and rampant corruption.
Thats what you inevitably get when there is no policing of the market place, just like what you can expect in terms of stree crime if you dont police the neighborhood.
What incentive does a company have to rip people off? Are you serious? Well, guess what bud. Most of the businesses in the world are not like well-established enterprises that have grown up in regualted economies like America. Most companies in the world are made up by small groups of people who are struggling in a competitive market. And it is absolutely guaranteed that, without regulation, some will cut corners, some will engage in corruption, some will do worse, and will make money doing so. If it eventually catches up to them, and they are found out, they simply disappear for awhile and reopen under a different name.
The examples you give make it clear that your horizon seems to be limited to the little world that you inhabit. And yet you advocate policies that would utterly destroy this very economic environment.
It is only because we have government regulation of the market place that we can create an environment where responsible companies can operate, and can compete with eachother to get you the best price on your gallon of gas. Without the regulation, then the criminal-types, or the basically good people under pressure who cut corners, would thrive – and that mentality would come to dominate the environment.
In a pure capitalist system, it is money, not people who have power. If you care about people having power, then a democratic government is the only venue for that.
Your ideal system would not allow slavery? How would you prevent it? By having the government enforce work contracts? By having government insure that people are actually being paid money for their work?
How would you prevent child labor?
Look, you have to recognize that this country has always been made up of people like you – who have an instinct for freedom. The regualtion of our economy has come about because people like you understood – from the hard experience of actually living in a unregulated market, that certain levels of regulation are absolutely essential. Niether our founders, nor their descendents were instinctivly regulation-minded. You need to study up a bit more on how and why we got to the place we are today, and what the consequences, in the real world, not just in theory, would have been had we not accepted certain levels of regulation.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:08 am
No laissez-faire theorist has ever called for the anarchic system that you describe. It is the proper role of a government to stop lies and force. I’ll add in lies to clarify things, though I consider that a form of force.
The government would enforce contracts. That is a proper role, for people are not allowed to lie and misrepresent themselves.
Child labor will be linked to age of consent, which should be, in my estimation, 16.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:13 am
Tano,
Spermatozoa and oocytes are not alive in any sense of the word. Neither can replicate. It is however true that embryos, and fetuses are alive and human as you stated. Put those together and they are human life. Unique individual human lives that are destroyed by the millions each year.
Tumor cells are obviously human, but to compare them to a fetus or an embryo makes about as much sense and comparing my liver to an embryo. No rational person can buy into that line of reasoning.
I do agree that the issue is whether a fetus is a person. You don’t believe a fetus is a person, just as 200 years ago most of society believed people of color shouldn’t be viewed as persons. You have no objective way of distinguishing between a fetus and person. Your explanation that a fetus doesn’t become a person until birth doesn’t work because it is totally arbitrary. Why not say a fetus becomes a person when the heart beats or when brain activity is detectable or when it is viable outside the uterus?
Your definition is one of convenience because it allows you to rationalize support for infanticide where a viable babies brains are literally sucked out when the baby is only a few inches away from taking its first breath. The reason liberals oppose measures to make facts about fetal development known to pregnant women is because you fear the woman might have an attack of conscience and recognize how barbaric abortions are.
It doesn’t feel good inside when you think about the fact that you are supporting sucking the brains out of babies skulls, ripping limbs from babies bodies, and burning the skin off of babies.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:28 am
Also, your argument about imposing morals on people who don’t believe them is the most faulty logic I have ever heard. What is a law if not an agreed upon moral value that society decides to enforce? Society agrees that murder is immoral so it is against the law. The same goes with all the other laws we have.
Are you suggesting that if my morals tell me murder is okay that society should let me practice my own morals and kill people instead of imposing their moral views upon me?
Pro-lifers aren’t wanting a minority of people to decide what the laws are. In fact that is just what we are fighting against. We want society to be able to decide this issue instead of a 4 men and one woman in black robes.
This isn’t just an issue of a woman and her body anymore than child abuse is an issue of a parent and their child.
You and other liberals have arbitrarilly selected birth as the final requirement for personhood in order to allow sex without consequences. It’s just too bad that those damned fetuses had to get in the way of all that great sex. Oh well we can burn their skin with saline and rip their limbs off and make everything better and get back to all that great sex.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:31 am
*
Power Line:
The bottom line is that, other things being even close to equal, a serious pro-life voter has strong reason to prefer Thompson over Giuliani and probably Romney on the record as it stands now. And that’s true regardless of whether the record includes Thompson lobbying for an abortion rights group in 1991.
- Paul Mirengoff, Powerlineblog.com, July 13, 2007
*
LifeSite:
Compared to the various other GOP front-runners, Thompson does appear to have a solid record, and has always voted on the side of pro-life and pro-family. As such, many conservatives are enthused about the possibility of a man with apparently solid convictions on matters of life and family who is willing to fill the void of truly conservative, high-profile GOP candidates.
- John Jalsevac, LifeSite, June 19, 2007
*
NRLC:
This morning, I cited reports being promoted by the pro-Romney blog Evangelicals for Mitt suggesting that Fred Thompson ran his two campaigns for Senate in Tennessee as a pro-choicer. Not so, National Right to Life executive co-director Darla St. Martin just told me.
St. Martin said that she went down to Tennessee in 1994 to speak with Thompson personally when he first ran for Senate, and that she determined he was against abortion.
‘I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion,’ St. Martin said. She told me that the group went on to support him in that election, and his record reinforced for her that their determination was correct.
‘He has a consistent voting record that is pro-life,’ she said.
On the NRLC website, they archive their congressional ratings back to 1997, so they include six of his eight years in the Senate. Thompson took the pro-life position on every vote he cast on the abortion issue…”
- Phillip Klein, AmSpec blog on American Spectator, March 22, 2007
*
More NLRC:
The Evangelicals for Mitt operation has spent its time attacking conservative Republican presidential candidates, most recently former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and unannounced candidate, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson.
Thompson, who has made it clear that he does not support Roe v. Wade, and who was certified as pro-life by the National Right to Life Committee back in 1994, has continued to state that he is pro-life. But the Evangelicals for Mitt, using research provided by the Romney campaign, has been putting out information on its blog that Thompson, as well as other Republican Senate candidates, were not.
The Romney campaign has targeted Thompson as a serious threat to its ongoing political survival. Recent polls that have just begun including Thompson in surveys show him running ahead of Romney…
- Bill Hobbs, Elephant Biz, March 26, 2007
*
More Fredophobia:
Both sides of the aisle are trying to figure out a way to derail the (Fred Thompson) campaign…
- JB Williams, MichNews?.com, Apr 11, 2007
*
NARAL:
Pro-abortion NARAL gives Fred an “F”:
“NARAL also rated nine other Republicans… Based on their abortion rights stance, the following Republicans received a grade of ‘F’: …Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee…”
- Susan Jones, CNSNews.com, July 14, 2000
*
Planned Parenthood:
“Listed below is the name, state and party of each of these senators along with Planned Parenthood’s rating of them.
Name State Party PP rating…
Fred Thompson TN R 0% ”
- The Stopp Report, November, 2001
*
Fred Thompson On The Issues:
Strongly Opposes topic 1:
Abortion is a woman’s right
(0 points on Social scale)
- VoteMatch Responses, ontheissues.org
*
Fred Said:
“I am pro-life. I have a 100% pro-life voting record on life issues… Intellectually, politically and from a policy standpoint, I’ve always voted that way ever since I’ve been in the Senate and felt that way. But I must say that it has meant more to me since I first saw the sonogram of my little (now} three-year-old daughter. I’ll never feel the same way about that again. So not only is it in my head, it’s in my heart now.”
“I think we ought to try to be tolerant of various views, but in terms of government policy, we ought to do what we can to discourage that. It’s a bad thing. I think the Supreme Court was absolutely right in its partial-birth abortion decision. The very idea that we could even have a debate over whether or not that atrocious activity should be allowable is very unfortunate, to say the least. I think a president has limited responsibility in that, but people deserve to know how you feel. And that’s how I feel about it.”
- Sean Hannity, Fred Thompson Interview, May 4, 2007
*
July 14th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Fred will be a big disappointment.
That can been seen a mile off.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:41 am
How is there any debate over weather a fetus is human? From the time a fetus is created, it has its own special DNA, and how it will look, etc. are already decided. A Fetus does not magically become human at the end of the second Trimester.
As for not being human because it cannot survive on its own, please. Does that mean that a 95 year-old woman who cannot survive without a life support machine is also not a human? No, it does not.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Tano, couple things:
“The issue is not with whether something is human or alive. The issues is whether this live human thing is a person, an individual.â€
Human judgement call? Who of us should be empowered to say with certainty when personality or individuality starts? Is it at birth? Is it at 6 or 7 months when the unborn child can live on its own prematurely? Is it at 2 or 3 months where the child has developed organs? I don’t think a anyone can make that decision. Therefore, we must default to conception.
“Personhood or individuality simply do not have an on-off, black and white, distinguishable starting point.â€
It does, it is called conception. Conception is the earliest point at which all the necessary building blocks are together to constitute a human being. Unless a liberal abnormally terminates (aborts), the child will grow to maximize his/her potential. This is about denying a being a *chance* at life. The abortionists has to intervene to deny the pursuit of happiness and liberty . I can’t think of anything more ugly and selfish when abortions are performed on normal healthy babies simply for convenience.
“It really comes down to the question of whether your moral and religous beliefs should be adopted by the government and imposed on those who do not share those beliefs.â€
I’ve used scientific arguments, Declaration of Independence, with countless other attempts to appeal for compassion, selflessness, and basic overall human decency. Tano, I’ve never argued pro-life here from a religious perspective.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:49 am
ACT Blog — 145 — Haha, you’re late. That’s already been covered in a series of like, ten posts in this thread.
DSkinner — 142 — We don’t (or shouldn’t, at least) make laws based on what “society” thinks, but on morality. We have no objective claim to use force upon other people; therefore, it is a proper role of the government to stop it. That is why murder is illegal.
It’s not about “great sex,” but about keeping unwanted babies out of the world and keeping mothers from eighteen years of something they didn’t want.
“It doesn’t feel good inside when you think about the fact that you are supporting sucking the brains out of babies skulls, ripping limbs from babies bodies, and burning the skin off of babies.”
It’s NOT A BABY to me, therefore, I feel pissed off more than anything that you think I promote infanticide. I would be promoting it — if embyros and fetuses were infants!
July 14th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Dskinner writes,
“Spermatozoa and oocytes are not alive in any sense of the word.”
That is an absurdly false statement. They may not be alive in YOUR sense of the word. But they certainly are alive in the sense of the word as used by most people.
Tumor cells are obviously human, but to compare them to a fetus or an “embryo makes about as much sense and comparing my liver to an embryo. No rational person can buy into that line of reasoning.”
They were not “compared” to a fetus. They were added to the list of biological phenomena that are alive, to make the point that life is a process that operates in all cells and tissues. The language used in the political debates is (often purposefully) extremely sloppy. “Life” is a prime example of this. Its use in these debates is pure marketing – trying to make the false claim that somehow life, at one point, is not present – then at some magical point (conception) it is present.
“I do agree that the issue is whether a fetus is a person. You don’t believe a fetus is a person, just as 200 years ago most of society believed people of color shouldn’t be viewed as persons.”
You may think that is clever, but it is nothing but cheap propaganda. Your statement is not an argument, because it assumes your conclusion – that the fetus really is a person – from the outset. The fact that blacks were once denied their personhood does not add any substance to the claim that a fetus is a person..
“You have no objective way of distinguishing between a fetus and person.”
I didnt claim that I have any such thing. I simply denied that you do either.
“Your explanation that a fetus doesn’t become a person until birth doesn’t work because it is totally arbitrary. Why not say a fetus becomes a person when the heart beats or when brain activity is detectable or when it is viable outside the uterus?”
Exactly.
Well, not exactly. To be precise, I didnt claim that the fetus only becomes a person at birth. I said it completes the process at birth. But your larger point holds. The binary choice of “person-nonperson”, applied at any one specific moment, is an arbitrary choice.
“Your definition is one of convenience…”
And so is yours. It is the imposition on the rest of society of your own arbitrary, religously justified definitions of when personhood is established. Your claims are not objectivly true – they are subjective interpretations. You are free to live your life in light of your belief systems, but you dont get to dictate to others what their belief systems must be.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
cwpete writes,
“Who of us should be empowered to say with certainty when personality or individuality starts?”
Well, apparently it should be the christian conservatives of this world, right? Because they are the ones who are demanding that their arbitrary choices in these matters be given the force of law.
“I don’t think a anyone can make that decision. Therefore, we must default to conception.”
Huh? Thats pretty funny cw! None of us can make the decision, so therefore we must default to my position! Gotta love that logic!
““Personhood or individuality simply do not have an on-off, black and white, distinguishable starting point.â€
It does, it is called conception.”
Oh. So one minute its “I don’t think a anyone can make that decision.”, and then the next minute you have the objectivly true answer! I think you are floundering around here….
“This is about denying a being a *chance* at life”
Well, thats progress. At least you admit that it is still only potentially a “life” (I guess you really mean “personhood”).
“I’ve never argued pro-life here from a religious perspective.”
There are no biological facts which mandate one answer over the other to the question of when something becomes a person.
The Declaration is a wonderful document, but it doesnt speak to this issue. It can be used as a justification for many different positions. You may not explicitly use religous terms, but the bottom line is that the interpretations that you use of biological facts are not objective interpretations, they are arbitrary, subjective interpretations that amount to either nothing more than your personal opinion, or, at most, the declarations of one particular religous tradition.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Is there anyone here who can prove, without doubt, when life begins? Not really, though a Fetus can die, and things that are not living cannot, so a fetus is, at least in some sense of the word, alive.
The logic of chooising conception as the start of life is simple, conception is the earliest point where all of the necessary components to create a child are together in a form that will become (or, if you believe the same things I do) is, human.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Tano,
What are you talking about? Show me a spermatozoa or an oocyte that can replicate, an essential function of life. What is your definition of life that includes sperm and eggs? I can only imagine your definition would also have to include a severed limb as life also. I really would like to hear your definition that somehow you claim most people share with you.
The example that 200 years ago people didn’t view african americans as people is valid to show that when people become more enlightened the accepted definition of what constitutes a person can change. It also shows that society is better when that definition moves toward protecting and respecting life.
You are the one imposing your view upon the rest of society through unelected judges. If you really want a majority of the people to be able to decide this issue then help overturn Roe so that the issue will be fairly decided. Right now pro-abortion views are the ones being imposed upon society. What a ridiculous argument you have. I can’t believe you really buy into your faulty logic.
You are so full of crap on this issue that it is astounding. How can you really believe that pro-lifers are trying to impose their views on society anymore than you are trying to impose your pro-abortion views on society. The point is society as a whole should be able to decide this issue instead of judges. You obviously oppose people actually voting on the issue otherwise you would support overturning Roe.
If you know anything about the history of Roe, you know that not only is it awful constitutional law, but the decision was also based on lies, exagerations and deception. A small minority of people imposed their will on the rest of society with Roe. (google Bernard Nathanson if you don’t believe me about the history of Roe)
The reason liberals like you don’t want this issue decided by people and legislators is because people will find it very hard to actually vote for barbarism when the facts about abortion are given to them. I have seen many moderate pro-choice people change their mind when they actually found out more about abortion. I can’t imagine anyone changing their mind to become pro-abortion after finding out more about the issue. Instead people become pro-abortion when they are either misinformed about what an abortion actually entails and/or what a fetus or embryo actually is, or they are just ignorant on the issue.
I noticed how you didn’t try to defend how barbaric abortions are. I assume that is because you conveniently block that part out and instead focus on the poor women who chose to have sex, but who can’t handle the consequences that come with sex.
Pro-lifers focus on the poor fetuses who are never given a chance at life because their life would inconvenience their mother. By the way, I know many atheists who are pro-life. It isn’t a religious issue the same way murder isn’t a religious issue. It is a moral issue, just like slavery and civil rights were.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Dskinner,
Life is a sustained process of biochemical reactions that has continued, in an unbroken chain, for 3.5 billion years. The process entails the processing of energy, ultimately derived from the sun, by forming larger and more complex molecules from simpler elements. Reproduction is essential to the continuation of life, but the process of life goes on in cells that may not, themselves reproduce.
You mention a “severed arm” as an example of what you presume would fall into my defintion of living matter. Well, yes, for a few moments, but then it will die, as it is cut off from the delivery of oxygen to the cells, and the process ceases. But it is an instructive example nonetheless, because it seems that you would consider an unsevered arm – an attached arm, as alive. I would agree. But I would point out that the arm itself does not reproduce – it is only part of a larger organism that is capable of reproducing. If an arm is alive, then why do you have difficulty see sperm as alive?
And what of infertile people, or animals – those who are unable to reproduce? Are they not alive in your definition because of this inability?
Your example with regard to black people not being recognized as people still fails as an argument. Of course, what qualifies as a “person” can change – this merely underlines the point of how subjective the definition is. And it is nothing but bald assertion on your part that somehow “enlightenment” means someone comes to agree with Dskinner.
“You are the one imposing your view upon the rest of society through unelected judges. ”
That is absurd. “Imposing” ones views on society means passing laws that force people to behave a certain way, under penalty of loss of freedom. No one is going to be prevented from holding the views that you hold, nor living their life accordingly. No one is being forced by the law to have an abortion. It is people like you who are trying to use the law – and the power of government, to prevent other people from behaving a certain way.
In a free society, the default position is freedom – the ability to do as one pleases. We restrict that in a number of ways in order to have an orderly peaceful society, but it is always an intentional act of freedom-restriction when we do so. You want to restrict the freedom of women to have an abortion. The flip side is to not have a restriction of freedom. It is not some counter-imposition, unless a law were passed that mandated abortions.
“Unelected judges” have always served as the protectors of freedom in our society. That is their role. The one potential flaw in a democracy is the potential ability of 51% of the people to enslave the other 49% (or more realistically, 99% enslaving the other 1%). The will of the majority is not absolute – the majority cannot trample on the inherint rights of individuals.
In the abortion debates, the intention of people like you is to make the things that happen inside a woman’s body the concern of the society at large – taking away her own autonomy over her own body. The courts were given the task of finding when it is, in our Consitutional system, that the society can be seen to have a legitimate right to such an intrusion. I think the balance that they found is essentially sound.
“Right now pro-abortion views are the ones being imposed upon society”
This is just silly. It is not a question of “views” being imposed on society. The only real imposition deserving of the name is an imposition of law – a real world authorization of the police forces to prevent certain behavior and for the judicial system to punish those behaviors. Once again, no “pro-life” person is being forced to do anything. No pro-life person is in danger of losing their liberty because they refuse to have an abortion.
“How can you really believe that pro-lifers are trying to impose their views on society anymore than you are trying to impose your pro-abortion views on society”
As I said – it is not “views” that I am concerned with. It is laws – real world preventions or punishments of behavior.
If it helps you understand this, I would add that I have no problem whatsoever with you continuing to make your arguements all you like. You can work as hard as you want to “impose” your “views” – i.e to persuade people to see things your way. But you should never be allowed to actually implement your views into law and force people to behave the way you think they should.
“The reason liberals like you don’t want this issue decided by people and legislators is because people will find it very hard to actually vote for barbarism when the facts about abortion are given to them.”
Thats just not true. People like you have been been forcing “the people” to see your interpretations of the facts for a very long time now, and all the polling seems to indicate that there is a very stable majority that is perfectly satisfied with the Roe solution.
The reason that liberals do not want this decided by the states is that in some states, the majority will attempt to impose their views on the minority, to trump the rights of the individual in a manner that violates our Constitutional order.
“I can’t imagine anyone changing their mind to become pro-abortion after finding out more about the issue”
You should get out more. It happens all the time. And you cant even imagine it?
“It isn’t a religious issue the same way murder isn’t a religious issue. It is a moral issue,…”
Murder is certainly a moral issue, but it is not against the law because of its immorality. It is against the law because it is a violation of the inherint rights of the individual.
You seem not to understand the difference between the moral dimension, by which we choose to order our lives (a personal struggle in which we freely may choose to accept guidance from religious traditions or any other source), and the political dimension, whereby we negotiate a set of rules by which we agree to live in society with other people. The great American compromise, initiated by our Revolution and implemented under our Constitution, is that free people are unconstrained to live thier personal lives according to the dictates of their own conscience, and we come together to negotiate rules to regulate our interactions with other people, with due regard to everyone’s inherint rights. I repeat what I said above – your moral sensibilities as to the status of an embryo or a fetus, is not some objective truth – it is your own view. And you are perfectly free to live your life in light of those views. Other people have other sincerely held moral beliefs on the matter that conflict with yours. At what point do your views have the “right” to be imposed on others, such that their behavior is constrained, or they can lose their liberty for failure to live by your standards? It is you who have the enormous burden to justify any such imposition.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Dskinner,
“What is your definition of life that includes sperm and eggs? ”
Life is a sustained process of biochemical reactions that has continued, in an unbroken chain, for 3.5 billion years. The process entails the processing of energy, ultimately derived from the sun, by forming larger and more complex molecules from simpler elements. Reproduction is essential to the continuation of life, but the process of life goes on in cells that may not, themselves reproduce.
You mention a “severed arm” as an example of what you presume would fall into my defintion of living matter. Well, yes, for a few moments, but then it will die, as it is cut off from the delivery of oxygen to the cells, and the process ceases. But it is an instructive example nonetheless, because it seems that you would consider an unsevered arm – an attached arm, as alive. I would agree. But I would point out that the arm itself does not reproduce – it is only part of a larger organism that is capable of reproducing. If an arm is alive, then why do you have difficulty see sperm as alive?
And what of infertile people, or animals – those who are unable to reproduce? Are they not alive in your definition because of this inability?
Your example with regard to black people not being recognized as people still fails as an argument. Of course, what qualifies as a “person” can change – this merely underlines the point of how subjective the definition is. And it is nothing but bald assertion on your part that somehow “enlightenment” means someone comes to agree with Dskinner.
“You are the one imposing your view upon the rest of society through unelected judges. ”
That is absurd. “Imposing” ones views on society means passing laws that force people to behave a certain way, under penalty of loss of freedom. No one is going to be prevented from holding the views that you hold, nor living their life accordingly. No one is being forced by the law to have an abortion. It is people like you who are trying to use the law – and the power of government, to prevent other people from behaving a certain way.
In a free society, the default position is freedom – the ability to do as one pleases. We restrict that in a number of ways in order to have an orderly peaceful society, but it is always an intentional act of freedom-restriction when we do so. You want to restrict the freedom of women to have an abortion. The flip side is to not have a restriction of freedom. It is not some counter-imposition, unless a law were passed that mandated abortions.
“Unelected judges” have always served as the protectors of freedom in our society. That is their role. The one potential flaw in a democracy is the potential ability of 51% of the people to enslave the other 49% (or more realistically, 99% enslaving the other 1%). The will of the majority is not absolute – the majority cannot trample on the inherint rights of individuals.
In the abortion debates, the intention of people like you is to make the things that happen inside a woman’s body the concern of the society at large – taking away her own autonomy over her own body. The courts were given the task of finding when it is, in our Consitutional system, that the society can be seen to have a legitimate right to such an intrusion. I think the balance that they found is essentially sound.
“Right now pro-abortion views are the ones being imposed upon society”
This is just silly. It is not a question of “views” being imposed on society. The only real imposition deserving of the name is an imposition of law – a real world authorization of the police forces to prevent certain behavior and for the judicial system to punish those behaviors. Once again, no “pro-life” person is being forced to do anything. No pro-life person is in danger of losing their liberty because they refuse to have an abortion.
“How can you really believe that pro-lifers are trying to impose their views on society anymore than you are trying to impose your pro-abortion views on society”
As I said – it is not “views” that I am concerned with. It is laws – real world preventions or punishments of behavior.
If it helps you understand this, I would add that I have no problem whatsoever with you continuing to make your arguements all you like. You can work as hard as you want to “impose” your “views” – i.e to persuade people to see things your way. But you should never be allowed to actually implement your views into law and force people to behave the way you think they should.
“The reason liberals like you don’t want this issue decided by people and legislators is because people will find it very hard to actually vote for barbarism when the facts about abortion are given to them.”
Thats just not true. People like you have been been forcing “the people” to see your interpretations of the facts for a very long time now, and all the polling seems to indicate that there is a very stable majority that is perfectly satisfied with the Roe solution.
The reason that liberals do not want this decided by the states is that in some states, the majority will attempt to impose their views on the minority, to trump the rights of the individual in a manner that violates our Constitutional order.
“I can’t imagine anyone changing their mind to become pro-abortion after finding out more about the issue”
You should get out more. It happens all the time. And you cant even imagine it?
“It isn’t a religious issue the same way murder isn’t a religious issue. It is a moral issue,…”
Murder is certainly a moral issue, but it is not against the law because of its immorality. It is against the law because it is a violation of the inherint rights of the individual.
You seem not to understand the difference between the moral dimension, by which we choose to order our lives (a personal struggle in which we freely may choose to accept guidance from religious traditions or any other source), and the political dimension, whereby we negotiate a set of rules by which we agree to live in society with other people. The great American compromise, initiated by our Revolution and implemented under our Constitution, is that free people are unconstrained to live thier personal lives according to the dictates of their own conscience, and we come together to negotiate rules to regulate our interactions with other people, with due regard to everyone’s inherint rights. I repeat what I said above – your moral sensibilities as to the status of an embryo or a fetus, is not some objective truth – it is your own view. And you are perfectly free to live your life in light of those views. Other people have other sincerely held moral beliefs on the matter that conflict with yours. At what point do your views have the “right” to be imposed on others, such that their behavior is constrained, or they can lose their liberty for failure to live by your standards? It is you who have the enormous burden to justify any such imposition.
July 15th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Tano, Tano, Tano..
I’m beginning to think you are on something:
“Huh? Thats pretty funny cw! None of us can make the decision, so therefore we must default to my position! Gotta love that logic!”
I did not make that decision, nor did the Christian right. Nature has. Fact of the matter is you are in defense of interrupting a being’s chance of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness usually for reasons that are selfish and convenient. How can an enlightened educated liberal be so cruel, ignorant & heartless?
You an excellent example of someone who has some intelligence but is very foolish. You flowery words presented in this thread & others can even make the grossest crimes seem acceptable.
You can try to deny nature (I can’t use the work God) all you want. Truth is truth light is light. You still fail to answer most my questions regarding on-demand abortion for anytime or any situation. A horrific terrible thing I say, yet you defend it. Despicable..
You are lucky because most are passive or indifferent to this issue. That is why I don’t think laws will change anytime soon. So party on! Little need for accountability or guilt when there is plenty liberalism abounding.
Thanks for the chat, it has been entertaining..