According to NEWSWEEK, conservatives will be disappointed when they find out from his papers what he really thinks. His pro-life position, for example, has conveniently evolved. My reading of the evidence is that he’s always been pro-life enough. Social conservatives can easily live with a president who’s not inclined to outlaw early-term abortions but wants all such compromises to be left to legislatures. And the evidence also shows Fred to be genuinely thoughtful, refreshingly ironic about human weakness, and not easily blinded by partisanship. (Thanks to Ivan the K.)
Well, think of it this way, he CAN'T be as bad as Bush has proven himself to be. Now can he?
The last thing our party needs is a petty, self-destructive inquisition about the abortion bona fides of its candidates. Thompson's position is good enough for the base and more than good enough for me.
Please, somebody explain to me how social conservatives, or most of them, can "easily" live with Thompson's position on abortion. Is this mere expediency? Does "easily" mean permanently?
Steve, The short answer is that a serious pro-lifer would welcome a national discussion on how to legislate about abortion, which could only come when the Court gets out of the abortion business.
Yes, I understand the short answer. A longer answer would respond to this question: would some social conservatives want the Court to find state laws permitting abortion unconstitutional?
Pro-lifers need a better appreciation for how the graphics, the sonograms, are driving the debate, and what's more, in the decades to come, will DICTATE an outcome, favourable to them. There's no need for a frenzy on this issue, the end of this radical abortion regime is in sight.
The West is looking at a demographic death spiral. That too, is going to exert enormous pressure on the radically permissive abortion regime.
The abortion mentality, the regime, the body of law that grew up around it, it's already getting tossed up on the ash heap of history.
So there's no need to become unhinged on that single issue. Giuliani can't stop the graphics, he can't stop the consequences flowing from the demographics. Even if he wanted to, even if he wanted to extend the reign of the abortion regime, his efforts will ultimately prove futile.
The West is not having enough children to maintain a welfare state. There is going to come a massive collision between the radically permissive abortion regime, and the proponents of the welfare state. The fiscal pressures are such that it's increasingly becoming clear, and will soon be incontrovertible, that you can have one, but not both. You can't have a welfare state, a Ponzi scheme, and allow tens of millions of future citizens to be wiped out in the womb.
Interesting question, Steve. After all, can a state allow murder? What if Virginia or some other state suddenly allowed [insert group of your choice] to be murdered within its borders?
Steve, There are, in fact, pro-lifers who really believe the SCOTUS should use the 14th Amendment protection of life to declare state laws allowing abortion unconst. But I'm with Scalia on this: The Constitution doesn't give sufficient guidance for the Court to speak one way or the others. No doubt there are similar hopes by others from state courts, but they are basically illegitimate and have little to no chance of being fulfilled. There's no alternative to legislative deliberation here.
The way to turn the tide of the abortion debate is to find ways to mimic Lincoln's rhetoric against slavery. It's all there. Once articulate apologists begin clearly and coolly setting up logical and articulate "If A then B" arguments, we can start rolling it all back. The medical technology available nowadays will only help. This, of course, requires a SCOTUS that at the very least allows legislation on the issue, and that requires a Republican nominee who can win and appoint such judges.