Fred Thompson: I'll ban abortion

[TallGuy]

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) – Likely Republican White House hopeful Fred Thompson (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/fred_thompson) told CNN Friday that he would work to overturn Roe v. Wade if elected president, and would push for a constitutional amendment that protects states from being forced to honor gay marriages performed in other states.
“I don’t think that one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage and have another state be required to follow along,” Thompson told CNN’s John King in an interview Friday.
Thompson added that the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion “was bad law and bad medicine.”
As for when he will jump into the race, the former Tennessee senator said "shortly."
“We are going to be getting in if we get in, and of course, we are in the testing the waters phase,” he said. “We’re going to be making a statement shortly that will cure all of that. But yeah, we’ll be in traditionally when people get in this race."
Thompson also said he believed he could enter the presidential race next month and still win the Iowa caucuses.
On the issue of Iraq, Thompson refused to provide a timeline for how much longer US forces would remain in the country under his administration, but said, “We need to make every effort to make sure that we don’t get run out of there with our tail between our legs before we’ve done the job of securing that place.”
Asked about critics who call him “too lazy” to put in the long hours necessary to run for president, Thompson said: “If I have critics in Washington it's not going to come as a surprise to me. I'll have more by the end of this campaign,” adding, “The proof’s in the pudding. I think that’s curable.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/17/thompson-on-running-we%e2%80%99ll-be-in/Hopefully, this won't happen.....

[LMAV]

Hopefully, this won't happen.....

Some people beleive its murder. I tend to agree.


Its just not right to go out and have ***, than kill the result just because you are to lay to deal with your actions. A lot of people feel this way.

[tyovan]

Thompson: I'll ban abortion
tyovan4: I'll not vote for Thompson

[Lord Of War]

Some people beleive its murder. I tend to agree.


Its just not right to go out and have ***, than kill the result just because you are to lay to deal with your actions. A lot of people feel this way.

So, If a woman was raped, happened to fall pregnant and decided that she did not want the child therefore have an abortion. Would you call her too lazy or a murderer?

[LMAV]

So, If a woman was raped, happened to fall pregnant and decided that she did not want the child therefore have an abortion. Would you call her too lazy or a murderer?

Rape is unwanted ***, so I would say abortion ok in that instance, or when the pregnancy risks the life of the woman.


Overturning Roe v. Wade?

Nope. No vote from me.

If you watch the interview that is on the page where this article came from, he seems slightly out of touch with modern society.


I don't know about that. I think there is a substantial number of people who have rethought abortion and realize it really is murder. In my and many others opinions, abortion is extremely barbaric. The idea that its "a womans body issue" is completely crap, because we are obviously talking about the rights of the unborn.

[Techmarine1228]

Overturning Roe v. Wade?

Nope. No vote from me.

If you watch the interview that is on the page where this article came from, he seems slightly out of touch with modern society.

[Zoomie]

So, If a woman was raped, happened to fall pregnant and decided that she did not want the child therefore have an abortion. Would you call her too lazy or a murderer?
It's funny how quickly supporters of abortion lob out the extreme examples, like the baby threatening the mother's life, rape, incest, etc.

[LMAV]

It's funny how quickly supporters of abortion lob out the extreme examples, like the baby threatening the mother's life, rape, incest, etc.

When that doesn't work, they go for the "modern society" argument, which is basically just a rehash of the bandwagon argument.

"Everyone else thinks its ok, therefor it is!"

[Lord Of War]

It's funny how quickly supporters of abortion lob out the extreme examples, like the baby threatening the mother's life, rape, incest, etc.

I support abortion?, Really? You must know more about me than I do.

An extreme example? Maybe, but they DO happen, even LMAV who is against abortion supports it in certain cases like the one I mentioned earlier.

[zwonder]

Laws aren't going to stop abortions, abortions have existed as long as pregnancies have, before it was done by doctors, women used crude and brutal methods to drop their baby, often hurting and killing themselves, you can't stop it. Abortion is the right a women, and the country shouldn't interfere with it, that's all.

[Techmarine1228]

I don't know about that. I think there is a substantial number of people who have rethought abortion and realize it really is murder. In my and many others opinions, abortion is extremely barbaric. The idea that its "a womans body issue" is completely crap, because we are obviously talking about the rights of the unborn.


I personally don't think the government should take a position on abortion. There are those that feel that it is the woman's right to choose, and those that think it should be illegal. Personally, I think that it's wrong because if you are having ***, you should be fully aware of the risks and willing to accept them. I recognize, however, that the extreme, such as rape, does happen, plus it is not my place, nor the governments in my opinion, to tell you what to do with your unborn fetus.

[Zoomie]

Laws aren't going to stop abortions, abortions have existed as long as pregnancies have, before it was done by doctors, women used crude and brutal methods to drop their baby, often hurting and killing themselves, you can't stop it. Abortion is the right a women, and the country shouldn't interfere with it, that's all.
Please point out where the Women's Bill of Rights is. So because we can't stop people from doing stupid stuff means we should let them? Criminals are going to break the law, and you can't stop, therefor we should repeal all laws, right?

[LMAV]

I personally don't think the government should take a position on abortion.

They take a position on other groups and their rights, do they not? Why are the unborn looked at as a group of humans with no rights?


Abortion is the right a women, and the country shouldn't interfere with it, that's all.What about the rights of the man and the unborn baby? Why does the woman get all the rights?

[zwonder]

Please point out where the Women's Bill of Rights is. So because we can't stop people from doing stupid stuff means we should let them? Criminals are going to break the law, and you can't stop, therefor we should repeal all laws, right?

It's inside her for god's sake of course she has a right over it. Unless you want to pass a law that says a women's womb is government property.

[Zoomie]

It's inside her for god's sake of course she has a right over it.
So that gives her the right to terminate life?

[TallGuy]

So that gives her the right to terminate life?
According to the current law, yes.

[NeedsABetterName]

It's inside her for god's sake of course she has a right over it. Unless you want to pass a law that says a women's womb is government property.

And where does life begin, then? When it pops out? Four months? At conception? I believe the fetus to be alive -- therefore, whose right is it to kill it, especially when the woman was simply irresponsible, not thinking about the possible consequences of her actions?

Overturning Roe vs. Wade does not mean that abortion is necessarily banned. It would leave room for the states to fill the void with abortion laws, correct? And since there's no clause in the Constitution discussing abortion, that's where they should be. Amazing how things can be spun.

[zwonder]

What do you get by that? Women will go to states that allow abortion to get one, or even worse, do it in home conditions.

[NeedsABetterName]

What do you get by that? Women will go to states that allow abortion to get one, or even worse, do it in home conditions.

If that's what they do, that's what they do. However, banning it at a federal level is unconstitutional in my opinion.

The 'oh, they'll just travel or use a coat hanger, so why not just let them do it legally' argument is pretty much moot, unless you're OK with legalizing things like hard drugs on that same principle (using street drugs that are often 'cut' into near-lethal doses and could result in deaths).

Also, if the mother cannot possibly support the child, why not put it up for adoption?

[Zoomie]

What do you get by that? Women will go to states that allow abortion to get one, or even worse, do it in home conditions.
Well if they're just doing it because having a child is unwanted/an inconvenience, perhaps they should think before they act.

Following the logic that if its a woman's right to terminate life, then it should be a man's right to deny child support.

[zwonder]

It's nothing like drugs, its something a women has rights on by having it inside her. Its not the country's job to interfere in peoples' lives unless they harm others people, and like I said, until wombs become US federal property you can't say it is.

[NeedsABetterName]

It's nothing like drugs, its something a women has rights on by having it inside her. Its not the country's job to interfere in peoples' lives unless they harm others people, and like I said, until wombs become US federal property you can't say it is.

No, abortion is nothing like drugs. However, the logic you are using to justify it is about the same as what I pointed out (they'll just do it illegally, so why not make it legal and keep them 'safe'). It's not the country's job to interfere in people's lives at the federal level (beyond constitutional rights, etc.), no. Abortion, the mother's right to choose, is not a protected right. In many views, it comes under murder -- I'm inclined to agree with that point of view, simply because I view the fetus as life from the moment it is conceived.

Who do you define as 'others?' Because by abortion, you're sure harming somebody else's life. It just happens to be a life you don't recognize because it's inside the mother's womb or whatever your logic is.

That's part of the reason why Roe vs. Wade is unconstitutional in my eyes, no matter which way the decision swings. However, at a state level, I believe it's perfectly fine if, say, Tennessee bans it and Alabama. However, it is not the federal government's job to take an opinion on it, be it pro-abortion or against it.

[LMAV]

It's nothing like drugs, its something a women has rights on by having it inside her. Its not the country's job to interfere in peoples' lives unless they harm others people, and like I said, until wombs become US federal property you can't say it is.

See, you dismiss the human life by calling it "it". It is in fact a human being with rights just like you and me.

It just seems like some people want to dismiss them because it could infringe on their fun. In reality, your sweeping aside a segment of the population that effectively has no rights. Why other minority groups are important and this one isn't, is a mystery to me.

[zwonder]

Are you suggesting fetuses should be registered citizens?

[LMAV]

Are you suggesting fetuses should be registered citizens?

I'm saying they are human beings with all the rights all human beings have.

[Basillicus]

It is problematic to define when fetus becomes human being. I'd say when it can survive outside womans womb it has all the rights but before that it's up to the mother to decide. In Finland the limit goes at 12 weeks, and I think that's OK. I don't think it is the physical matter what makes human being, but the consciense. For this reason I also support euthanasia in situations where most of brain has been severally damaged and patient is in a vegetated state with minimal chance of recovery.

[LMAV]

It is problematic to define when fetus becomes human being. I'd say when it can survive outside womans womb it has all the rights but before that it's up to the mother to decide. In Finland the limit goes at 12 weeks, and I think that's OK

Seems like supporters need 12 weeks to justify in in their minds. In reality however, its a human at conception. Unless you know of a time when a human fetus turns in to something other than a human.


I don't think it is the physical matter what makes human being, but the consciense.This is the same thing. Its like rationalization of something you know in your heart is wrong. You come up with all these reasons its not a human, even though we all know it is no matter how you slice it.

I mean, physical matter doesn't make a human? What the hell do you call DNA?

[DeltaWhisky58]

This has gone far enough.