Do you not consider the Supreme Court a part of the Federal Government?

No. Not when they throw the constitution aside to make a judgement.

I also think that Nixon and Kevin Spacey had a love child in Huckleberry Hound.

Roe V. Wade should be overturned, most certainly, but there is no need whatsoever for a Federal Abortion Ban. That is too much.

HebrewToYou on February 21, 2008 at 12:00 PM

I’m not arguing for one.

And Roe v. Wade is exactly what I was talking about. Do you not consider the Supreme Court a part of the Federal Government?

Abortion has always been an issue. It was omitted from the US Constitution because it wasn’t an issue the Federal Gov’t wanted to address.

You misunderstand me. I have never been under the impression that abortions were recently invented. That was not my point at all. My point is that it was illegal nationwide and thus not an issue that the Constitution had to address the way it was forced to address slavery.

Had abortion been legal in some states at the time it too might have been addressed in the constitution.

Abortion has always been an issue. It was omitted from the US Constitution because it wasn’t an issue the Federal Gov’t wanted to address.

And by making abortion legal in the first place, doesn’t the Federal Government already have its hands in the abortion issue as well?

What in blue blazes are you talking about? The Federal Gov’t never legalized abortion. The closest they came was the Comstock Act, which banned the advertisement of abortion services. Abortion was treated differently by each state until Roe V. Wade, at which point it became legal due to judicial fiat.

Roe V. Wade should be overturned, most certainly, but there is no need whatsoever for a Federal Abortion Ban. That is too much.

Maybe because slavery is a topic specifically addressed in the constitution! The Federal Gov’t already had their hand in the issue. Abortion is not comparable to slavery.

HebrewToYou on February 21, 2008 at 10:45 AM

It was specifically addressed because it was an issue at the time. Had abortion been legal in some states at the time it too might have been addressed in the constitution.

And by making abortion legal in the first place, doesn’t the Federal Government already have its hands in the abortion issue as well?

Vaporman87 on February 21, 2008 at 9:46 AM

A fool and his money soon part ways.

Why is it that abortion is a state’s rights issue but slavery wasn’t?

Maybe because slavery is a topic specifically addressed in the constitution! The Federal Gov’t already had their hand in the issue. Abortion is not comparable to slavery.

As should every Republican candidate. It’s. Not. A. Federal. Issue. Neither is gay marriage. Stop trying to expand the power of the Federal Gov’t. You’re acting like a liberal.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 6:50 PM

I’m not trying to argue with you. I’m sincerely asking a question.

Why is it that abortion is a state’s rights issue but slavery wasn’t? Is it just because people consider slavery so much worse than abortion or is there some other reason? Or do you believe that it actually should have been a state’s rights issue?

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 11:42 PM

Yes, sir. But I can’t promise I won’t talk about it again in the future. This is a great forum to discuss even controversial issues. I think that as conservatives, we’re grown up enough to disagree in a mature manner.

I promise I’ll watch my manner.

Abortion is more than a political position to me.

All the more reason not to discuss it here. Not everyone is a Christian and not everyone is willing to tell people in the Blue States they can’t have their abortions. It’s a divisive issue.

Like I said before here… Evangelicals deserve better than this jerk.

Always Right on February 20, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Bing.

HebrewToYou, I re-read my post and want you to know that I didn’t mean to make it personal with you. I hate abortion. Makes my blood boil. So when I saw your post, I lashed out at the logic of it. That’s all.

No worries.

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH VOTES FOR THE HUMAN LIFE AMENDMENT TO PASS. Period. Get your head out of Huckster’s ass and think logically for a second.

bigred on February 20, 2008 at 8:45 PM

Watch your language.

If you think that my anti-abortion stance begins and ends with Huckabee, you’re lost. Big time. It’s 34 years now that murdering babies has been legal in America.

The pro-life movement has NEVER STOPPED. We never will. The pro-life movement is gaining ground, the abortion industry is losing ground.

Your statement has a political logic to it:

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH VOTES FOR THE HUMAN LIFE AMENDMENT TO PASS.

That’s what you said.

Abortion is more than a political position to me. Stop talking like a politician. This is about human beings.

McCain and his people were agitating as early as New Hampshire for Romney to leave the race, because Romney was a legitimate threat to his hopes – he had the cash and a willingness to spend it. After South Carolina, one of McCain’s designated doucheweasels was stating for the record that Romney was “hurting America” by not dropping out. Did any other candidate get that? No. Because what’s good for McCain is good for America, and Romney stood in Maverick’s way.

Huck isn’t standing in anyone’s way. He’s a bloviating cancer on the buttcheek of American politics, but he’s not an impediment to the nomination.

I guess you could say I’m not fund of Huck.

Punishment for murder IS A STATE ISSUE.

Murder is murder. If someone murders in Nebraska, then runs to California, that doesn’t excuse them from the Nebraska murder. They don’t “get away” with it.

This is what happens when morality is ever-changing. When it goes up for sale. It’s ridiculous.

HebrewToYou, I re-read my post and want you to know that I didn’t mean to make it personal with you. I hate abortion. Makes my blood boil. So when I saw your post, I lashed out at the logic of it. That’s all.

I HATE ABORTION. Is that clear enough? But I went to UC Santa Cruz and know plenty of women who feel otherwise. I’m not going to argue with them. Ultimately it’s their decision and they have to live with it. But don’t berate me about why abortion sucks. I agree.

It’s just not an issue to be regulated at the Federal level. Same with gay marriage. Leave. These. Issues. To. The. States. Be a federalist.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 8:51 PM

Ditto. Although you have to admit, if we wanted to make abortion a federal issue, a Constitutional Amendment is the proper way to do it (even though it’s not realistic).

I still like Huck better than Maverick.

Except that I was/am a Romney supporter and can’t stand Huckabee. My original questions stand. How do you expect to win in November when your side is too busy running a vendetta against social conservatives and evangelicals? You really think your pathetic John McCain’s support in blue states is going to last into the general election? You really think Southerners are going to vote for McCain when he despises them almost as much as you and your arrogant crowd of arrogant elitist RINOs? Lotsa luck with that.

There really is only one issue Huck was suspect on. Immigration. But, If changing one’s position on an issue is a disqualifier, you have no one to vote for. I just wanted to remind you to consider holding all these candidates equally accountable for their flip-flopping because they are all guilty. Some more and some less so.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 6:20 PM

appocalyps, I never thought I would hear you say that about Huckabee. Since you admitted a fault of him I will now tell you that I am for Huckabee as he is the best of the remaining candidates. I do not consider it lesser of two evils. Rather, I consider him a good choice and McAmnesty a very, very, very poor excuse for a position in any form.

GO HUCK! Stay in there so I can vote for you in NC. Republicans, don’t demand our choices be taken away until we all have a voice. Let the system play out and then I still will not vote McCain.

I can tell you that everyone I personally know in NC that supported Fred, Mitt, Hunter, or Tancredo are now for Huck. Go figure! They also HATE McCain!

Either you haven’t thought the abortion issue through (meaning that you are buying liberal lies) or your morality is different than most Americans.

Federal crimes are very specifically defined. The Fed doesn’t pursue every murder case. It’s not their jurisdiction.

I HATE ABORTION. Is that clear enough? But I went to UC Santa Cruz and know plenty of women who feel otherwise. I’m not going to argue with them. Ultimately it’s their decision and they have to live with it. But don’t berate me about why abortion sucks. I agree.

It’s just not an issue to be regulated at the Federal level. Same with gay marriage. Leave. These. Issues. To. The. States. Be a federalist.

MURDER–a state issue. Sickens me.

Skidd on February 20, 2008 at 8:30 PM

Do you Huckarubes know anything other that was the snakeoil salesman tells you?

Punishment for murder IS A STATE ISSUE. As are all crimes, unless they have federal jurisdiction.

Some states have the death penalty. Some have automatic life in prison for first degree murder. It’s up to each individual state how they choose to hand out the punishment.

I’m guessing Hebrewtoyou and most others on this board are pro-life. But unlike you and the other Huckarubes, we’re logical. Right now, ABORTION is LEGAL everywhere.

There’s nothing the President can do about it until the the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. Then it should, and will fall back to the states.

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH VOTES FOR THE HUMAN LIFE AMENDMENT TO PASS. Period. Get your head out of Huckster’s ass and think logically for a second.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 7:38 PM

That is the most ignorant post I’ve ever seen here. I’m hoping against hope it was a put on.

Fred would allow abortion at the state level.
apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 6:47 PM

As should every Republican candidate. It’s. Not. A. Federal. Issue. Neither is gay marriage. Stop trying to expand the power of the Federal Gov’t. You’re acting like a liberal.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 6:50 PM

This attitude about the abortion issue is one of the reasons that evangelical Christians are moving away from the Republican base. It disgusts me. It also saddens me.

Abortion is murder. I can’t even believe we have to go over this fact anymore. It’s MURDER. We have come so far in science over the last 30 years, the facts are undeniable. So undeniable, the liberal left is once again trying to REDEFINE terms so that they can continue to kill babies without calling it murder.

They are trying to claim that pregnancy doesn’t begin until the egg/embryo attaches itself to the uterine wall. Because even THEY can’t deny that life begins at conception.

Redefining of words/terms/statements and revising history. That’s what the liberal left does to change our culture and humanity.

So Hebrew, you are stating that abortion shouldn’t be a Federal issue. You think killing babies should be a STATE ISSUE.

MURDER–a state issue. Sickens me.

Either you haven’t thought the abortion issue through (meaning that you are buying liberal lies) or your morality is different than most Americans.