
Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson speaks at The Citadel military college in Charleston, S.C., Nov. 13, 2007.
Before we begin this installment of the Rights Advocate blog, I wanted to thank all the commentors on both sides of the issue. To date we have been fortunate and have had for the most part literate and respectful posts. We have not edited or had to censure any comments for crude or disrespectful language, and I am appreciative of that. I believe a productive conversation may persist if this forum persists in an articulate manner.
We want to hear all sides of the issue and are open to our opinion being changed by good sound discussion. What more could we ask for? That enlightenment is welcomed. We hope that none of us are so dug into our dogmatic opinions as to not appreciate the well articulated position of another with an even diametrically opposed perspective.
I thank you all for your thought full commentary.
With that preface in mind let’s consider 11/13/07. The implications may be profound and we should all be aware of these important issues.
November 13, 2007 · Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson picked up a devisive endorsement from the National Right to Life committee. This committee is well known as the nation’s most outspoken anti-choice group.
This endorsement may have surprised some advocates of choice because Thompson does not support the Human Life Amendment. This amendment has been the movement’s primary goal for many decades. The endorsement is another symbol of division among social groups as the 2008 presidential campaign comes to us quickly.
David O’Steen is the executive director of the National Right to Life Committee. He said that he knows conservatives have given support to other GOP candidates for the primary. Mr. O’Steen declared that the organization’s backing will undoubtedly be a lift for Thompson in the primaries that are approaching rapidly.
“It’s been done after much consideration, much study, we have been watching this race since January,” said O’ Steen. “This is the first endorsement in the Republican race from a major grass-roots pro-life organization, representing 50 state organizations and about 3,000 chapters.”
O’Steen said his group pored over voting records and positions on abortion, but also electability. O’Steen made it profoundly obvious that one litmus was dissallowing the nomination of the primary GOP front-runner, the former Mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani.
“I would assume he’s expressing his views, and he’s been consistent with that. Rudy Giuliani has not changed his position — he’s running as a pro-abortion candidate,” said O’Steen confidently.
Thompson trumped up his own integrity in a television ad, declaring that he is “proud to have a 100 percent pro-life voting record.”
However, on NBC’s Meet the Press 9 days ago, Mr. Thompson struggled with the question of when exactly does life begin. He had been on the record in 1994 that he wasn’t sure. He told NBC as well, in a recent interview, “my head has always been the same place.” Later in the interview, Thompson said he believes life begins at conception.
Thompson stated without hesitation that he remains opposed to a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, and he thought that it would be more pragmatic to leave this vital question to the states.
“I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with,” he said ironically. “That’s what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government … serves us very, very well. I think that’s true of abortion.” One wonders if Abortion were indeed murder in the was that it is portrayed by the social conservatives would it surely be an issue simply left to the states? It would be strong enough to be an issue of federal importance as would murder in any sense be.
O’Steen said his group found Republican Mitt Romney too inconsistent on the abortion issue. He disliked the Arizona Sen. John McCain position on embryonic stem-cell research, and he regarded the other hopefuls as, simply, long shots — they are too under-prepared and not funded well enough to catch up to Giuliani.
In the last several days, social conservatives have been as vociferous as ever — just not as harmonious.
Televangelist Pat Robertson declared that he is backing Giuliani.
Ironically, juxtaposed to that position, Paul Weyrich, a founder of the Moral Majority, with voting integrity said Romney is the proper choice on this issue.
“George Bush combined a perspective that was very familiar to social conservatives, and an ability to win and raise millions and millions of dollars,” he said. When asked which Republican could accomplish that now, Ayres replied: “Nobody, which is why social conservatives are fractured at the moment.”
Still, Ayres insisted the party is not too worried about where social conservatives will be by the fall. Hillary Clinton, he said, remains social conservatives’ best hope for a rallying cry.

December 4, 2007 at 10:33 pm
I DONT BELIVE IN ABORTION ITS MURDER ITS SOO WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
December 5, 2007 at 7:41 am
Rachel,
Thanks you for adding your perspective.
Thank you for your input.
If one looks at previous threads of this type of comment, one would ask, to initiate a grounded conversation, is there any situation that you would allow an abortion? Or is it always murder. I would appreciate to know how you feel on the examples below or if you really truly believe it is murder every single time, as some people do. However, most people I have talked to do not, so I am curious, as some of the cases especially where the mother would die if the fetus were not aborted, are often cases where the person is accepting of the concept of abortion.
Examples include, and there are many more,
1) Cancer of the Cervix.
2) Tubal pregnancies, this is a live growing baby, that will most often rupture the tube and kill the mother if the baby is not aborted.
3) The many diseases that the mother has a >50% mortality rate, ie Epstein’s heart anomaly.
4) Rape of a women without their (implied) consent, especially when it is the natural father, especially reprehensible, I am sure you would agree.
5) Episodes when the best intentions, like a tubal ligation and a vasectomy are performed but they fail, sadly this happens, and there are many more examples. These are not insignificant examples, as one sees them commonly in everyday experience as reported in the peer reviewed literature, and anecdotal experience. This is a confluence of opinion by both sides of the issue.
6) Severe Toxemia in early 3rd trimester pregnancy where the mother will die of seizures or stroke if the baby is not delivered prematurely and most certainly have a great chance of death and an almost definitive chance of severe neurological (among other) consequences that it will suffer from it’s whole life if it does not die in the ICU that same day from prematurity – the lungs just are not ready.
So, as a starting point to understand perspectives, do any of these in your opinion, warrant allowing a women to have the right to make the choice about what she would do with her own body, or do you feel that under all these circumstances the women has no right to choose what happens to her body? This would be educational to the discussion. Thank you for your kind participation.
LikeLike
December 18, 2007 at 8:11 am
Fred
seems great, i only wish he was prochoice! He lost my vote!
Ira
LikeLike