Mystery
New member
Okay, but let's not sacrifice more babies, while we are rebuking them.
Huckabee on abortion
- Thread starter Toast
- Start date
- Status
Sometimes you play offence, at other times defense. I will vote McCain as a defensive vote to hopefully stop Hillary or Obama from being president. My hope is that a better candidate will come along in four years. If McCain does a better job, than Bush on the war and has good policies the help the economy, he might get my support, but if he causes me to think we lose more in congress, I will not support him.
It seems to me that some conservatives do not fear the two Democrat candidates as much as I do, I hope they are right.
I have not been well these past days, so I have not posted much. Have a good night.
It seems to me that some conservatives do not fear the two Democrat candidates as much as I do, I hope they are right.
I have not been well these past days, so I have not posted much. Have a good night.
Hope you get to feeling better.I would suggest placing rhetoric aside then and going and looking at Huckabee's actual record regarding abortion. While Governor of Arkansas every limitation that the courts will currently allow was put on abortion and a Right to Life amendment was added to Arkansas state constitution. This was done despite Huckabee having to work a legislature completely controlled by the Democrats and also resulted in dramatic drop in the actual number of abortions sought by citizens of Arkansas.
Huckabee isn't going to end abortion unless he signs an executive order as Keyes has promised to do if elected.
But Keyes can't even get 1% of the Republican vote, so what he says becomes meaningless. You're quite right though, Huckabee being elected will not end abortion, but it will certainly continue to prevent even federal funding of it and will result in having a President who would use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to advance a Human Life amendment, will nominate pro-life justices to the court, and will seek to restrict abortion as far as currently legally possible.
Now of course Huckabee has very little chance of actually winning at this point, but even if he doesn't voting for him WILL result in more of his delegates being sent to the convention and those delegates play a role not only in selecting the nominee but also in adopting the party's platform. So there are real, tangible benefits to voting for him even if he is unable to actually capture the nomination.
Bush said the same things.
And? My continued point on this is that actual action is more important than rhetoric. And, on this issue, Gov. Huckabee has an extremely strong record of actually advancing the Pro-Life cause.
Actually, Bush has always claimed that he doesn't have a "litmus test," that it's not a deal-breaker if a judge is pro-abortion.
Unfortunately, that fell on deaf ears with most pro-lifers.
Mystery
New member
It's not true.
So Huckabee isn't state-to-state on the issue?
Mystery
New member
Not as of his own words this past weekend. He is for a constitutional amendment banning all abortions. In fact, it was stated as his priority # 1
Huckabee is the only mainline candidate I would even consider voting for, but I do find some things troubling:
His recent statements about abortion have been good, saying that no state should be allowed to legalize abortion any more than they should be allowed to legalize slavery. But he has said in the past that the states should be allowed to decide. And he currently claims that his position has not changed.
When he said the states should be allowed to decide, he may have been speaking from the perspective of a governor who is frustrated that he can't move to ban abortion in his state. But his statement was irresponsible and short-sighted at best.
Also troubling to me is what I saw in this video posted at the page Adambassidor linked:
Everything he said made sense and was correct, until the end where he said that people have the right to do embryonic stem cell research if they use private funds. He'd just got done explaining that embryonic stem cell research destroys human lives, then says that people have a right to do it?
Things like this make me suspicious of him.
His recent statements about abortion have been good, saying that no state should be allowed to legalize abortion any more than they should be allowed to legalize slavery. But he has said in the past that the states should be allowed to decide. And he currently claims that his position has not changed.
When he said the states should be allowed to decide, he may have been speaking from the perspective of a governor who is frustrated that he can't move to ban abortion in his state. But his statement was irresponsible and short-sighted at best.
Also troubling to me is what I saw in this video posted at the page Adambassidor linked:
| Huckabee on Stem Cell Research | |
Everything he said made sense and was correct, until the end where he said that people have the right to do embryonic stem cell research if they use private funds. He'd just got done explaining that embryonic stem cell research destroys human lives, then says that people have a right to do it?
Things like this make me suspicious of him.
Huckleberry often attempts to differentiate between what's moral and what's legal, because many people are afraid that he'll mix his religious perspectives with his political policies. Hence, the doubletalk. He's got two different positions on perhaps every single issue.
Mystery
New member
The video is from April 13th, but I do not know what year.
As of this last friday when he spoke near my home, we was for a constitutional amendment to ban ALL abortions, and not give that power to the states.
My opinion goes something like this...
If I go to the fanciest steak house in town and they are out of the KC Strip, I'll order the Filet Mignion, but there is no way way I'm going to pay my check without getting some meat.
As of this last friday when he spoke near my home, we was for a constitutional amendment to ban ALL abortions, and not give that power to the states.
My opinion goes something like this...
If I go to the fanciest steak house in town and they are out of the KC Strip, I'll order the Filet Mignion, but there is no way way I'm going to pay my check without getting some meat.
I think it's important to look at what he actually said. In an interview back in 2006 when asked he felt Roe v. Wade should be repealed he answered:
It would please me because I think Roe v. Wade is based on a real stretch of Constitutional application -- that somehow there is a greater privacy issue in the abortion concern -- than there is a human life issue -- and that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision.
So, I've never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous.
So, I've never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous.
This is a completely accurate statement of what should occur under the law as it currently exists.
It's entirely possible to support the reversal of Roe v. Wade and returning the authority to ban abortion to the states in the short term, while support the passage of Human Life amendment to completely ban in nationally in the long term.
Now going back further (over a decade to 1995), I have seen it alleged that he supported a removing the call for a Human Life amendment from the Republican platform and replacing with just a call to turn the issue back over the states. However, the only source I've seen for that was a single sentence quote from a Press Release issued by the Fred Thompson campaign, which without having access to the statement in context I'm a bit wary of.
However, it's entirely possible he's weasel-wording a bit and when he says that he's "never changed positions" he means that he's always been Pro-Life as opposed to having always been for a Human Life amendment. But again, it's entirely possible even from that 1995 quote that what he's saying is to concentrate on reversing Roe v. Wade as matter of political strategy as opposed to opposing the passage of a Human Life amendment.
While I don't agree with him here, what he is talking about is research done on already existing lines of stem cells, not the destruction of of additional embryo's in order to create stem cells. I personally oppose even that, but this still puts him well to the right of McCain (who supports federal funding for stem cell research) and even the recently withdrawn Romney (who supported allowing private groups to continue to destroy embryo's to create stem cells).
- Status