<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fred Thompson, federalism, and the protection of human life</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jaredbridges.net/archives/2007/11/07/fred-thompson-federalism-and-the-protection-of-human-life/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jaredbridges.net/archives/2007/11/07/fred-thompson-federalism-and-the-protection-of-human-life/</link>
	<description>News, opinion, commentary, &#38; general mischief from Jared Bridges</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:12:16 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jared Bridges</title>
		<link>http://www.jaredbridges.net/archives/2007/11/07/fred-thompson-federalism-and-the-protection-of-human-life/comment-page-1/#comment-101822</link>
		<dc:creator>Jared Bridges</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:51:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jaredbridges.net/archives/2007/11/07/fred-thompson-federalism-and-the-protection-of-human-life/#comment-101822</guid>
		<description>Ron -- thanks for the comments.  I&#039;ll tackle your questions in order, and as briefly as I can (which is no easy task, as pages could be written on each of these points):

&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;em&gt;Lincoln, in the first debate, said, “My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,-to their own native land.” He did not foresee the resolution of slavery. Jefferson had envisioned deportation too. The tug of war over them is misplaced.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I never meant to imply that Lincoln was an abolitionist (though he progressed in this direction during his presidency).  My point was to show that Thompson&#039;s position more closely aligned with a states-rights Democrat than the first Republican president.  I think the comparison is valid.

&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;em&gt;*I* think we should overlook, just for example, this…

Ephesians 6:5: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,

… and call slavery wrong.

But why would *you* would overlook it?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I wouldn&#039;t overlook it.  First of all, that verse doesn&#039;t condone slavery --- it gives guidance for the actions of Christian slaves.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=ephesians+6%3A5-9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;In the very next verse&lt;/a&gt;, Paul tells them to whom they are truly slaves (same term is used, the Greek &quot;doulos&quot;) is due: Christ.  This passage no more condones slavery than does Romans 13:1-7 condone the Roman government&#039;s antagonism towards Christianity.  These passages suspend judgment for oppressive behaviors in exchange focusing on the behavior of individual Christians.  To read the Apostle Paul pleading for the freedom of a slave, take a look at the book of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=philemon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Philemon&lt;/a&gt;.

&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;em&gt;How do you know a fetus is a person?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

A fetus is uniquely a human being, and nothing else.  Sure, a fetus consists of any number of infinite molecules, but so do you and I.  As for the tricky classification of &quot;personhood,&quot; it need not be a Peter Singer-style arbitrary classification.  Simply put, &quot;personhood&quot; is God-given a dignity, given to us when we become human beings.  As we are humans when we are uniquely human, this occurs at conception.

&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;em&gt;Where does the Fourteenth amendment protect them?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&quot;No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; &lt;strong&gt;nor shall any State deprive any person of life&lt;/strong&gt;, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.&quot;  Alas, so far the courts haven&#039;t seen this, thus the need for an amendment clarifying this.

I will add that the Constitution need not enumerate this for it to be an &quot;unalienable right.&quot;  The Constitution is not comprehensive, which  is why it allowed for itself to be amended by the people.

&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;em&gt;What penalty should a woman face if she has an abortion?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

If abortion were to be made a crime, the doctor who performs the abortion should be prosecuted, not the woman.  I largely agree with the authors of &lt;a href=&quot;http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjkwNWQ4ZDQ2NTljNDg4MjUyYWIxZWQ0NDVjMTkxYjg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this symposium on the topic&lt;/a&gt;, who say it better than I could in this brief space.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ron &#8212; thanks for the comments.  I&#8217;ll tackle your questions in order, and as briefly as I can (which is no easy task, as pages could be written on each of these points):</p>
<blockquote><p><em>Lincoln, in the first debate, said, “My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,-to their own native land.” He did not foresee the resolution of slavery. Jefferson had envisioned deportation too. The tug of war over them is misplaced.</em></p></blockquote>
<p>I never meant to imply that Lincoln was an abolitionist (though he progressed in this direction during his presidency).  My point was to show that Thompson&#8217;s position more closely aligned with a states-rights Democrat than the first Republican president.  I think the comparison is valid.</p>
<blockquote><p><em>*I* think we should overlook, just for example, this…</p>
<p>Ephesians 6:5: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,</p>
<p>… and call slavery wrong.</p>
<p>But why would *you* would overlook it?</em></p></blockquote>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t overlook it.  First of all, that verse doesn&#8217;t condone slavery &#8212; it gives guidance for the actions of Christian slaves.  <a href="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=ephesians+6%3A5-9" rel="nofollow">In the very next verse</a>, Paul tells them to whom they are truly slaves (same term is used, the Greek &#8220;doulos&#8221;) is due: Christ.  This passage no more condones slavery than does Romans 13:1-7 condone the Roman government&#8217;s antagonism towards Christianity.  These passages suspend judgment for oppressive behaviors in exchange focusing on the behavior of individual Christians.  To read the Apostle Paul pleading for the freedom of a slave, take a look at the book of <a href="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=philemon" rel="nofollow">Philemon</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p><em>How do you know a fetus is a person?</em></p></blockquote>
<p>A fetus is uniquely a human being, and nothing else.  Sure, a fetus consists of any number of infinite molecules, but so do you and I.  As for the tricky classification of &#8220;personhood,&#8221; it need not be a Peter Singer-style arbitrary classification.  Simply put, &#8220;personhood&#8221; is God-given a dignity, given to us when we become human beings.  As we are humans when we are uniquely human, this occurs at conception.</p>
<blockquote><p><em>Where does the Fourteenth amendment protect them?</em></p></blockquote>
<p>&#8220;No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; <strong>nor shall any State deprive any person of life</strong>, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.&#8221;  Alas, so far the courts haven&#8217;t seen this, thus the need for an amendment clarifying this.</p>
<p>I will add that the Constitution need not enumerate this for it to be an &#8220;unalienable right.&#8221;  The Constitution is not comprehensive, which  is why it allowed for itself to be amended by the people.</p>
<blockquote><p><em>What penalty should a woman face if she has an abortion?</em></p></blockquote>
<p>If abortion were to be made a crime, the doctor who performs the abortion should be prosecuted, not the woman.  I largely agree with the authors of <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjkwNWQ4ZDQ2NTljNDg4MjUyYWIxZWQ0NDVjMTkxYjg" rel="nofollow">this symposium on the topic</a>, who say it better than I could in this brief space.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.jaredbridges.net/archives/2007/11/07/fred-thompson-federalism-and-the-protection-of-human-life/comment-page-1/#comment-101637</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2007 03:01:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jaredbridges.net/archives/2007/11/07/fred-thompson-federalism-and-the-protection-of-human-life/#comment-101637</guid>
		<description>By all means, jump off the Fred Thompson train, but getting on the Huckabee train is getting on a train that isn&#039;t going anywhere.  I like Huckabee&#039;s stance on social issues (they certainly improve on Thompson&#039;s, let alone Giuliani&#039;s) but I have two problems with supporting Huckabee.

First, his credentials on economic issues are a major liability.

Second, to quote Hugh Hewitt, &quot;A Vote for Huckabee is a Vote for Giuliani.&quot;  There are a lot of reasons for this, which Hugh explains better than I can.  See the &lt;a href=&quot;http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/a64c9c8f-b7bc-4ecc-8176-33fe59ad6b0c&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Townhall.com blog post for Nov 9&lt;/a&gt;.

Like it or not, there are only two viable trains right now: Giuliani&#039;s or Romney&#039;s.  And only one of those has it right on the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Human Life Amendment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By all means, jump off the Fred Thompson train, but getting on the Huckabee train is getting on a train that isn&#8217;t going anywhere.  I like Huckabee&#8217;s stance on social issues (they certainly improve on Thompson&#8217;s, let alone Giuliani&#8217;s) but I have two problems with supporting Huckabee.</p>
<p>First, his credentials on economic issues are a major liability.</p>
<p>Second, to quote Hugh Hewitt, &#8220;A Vote for Huckabee is a Vote for Giuliani.&#8221;  There are a lot of reasons for this, which Hugh explains better than I can.  See the <a href="http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/a64c9c8f-b7bc-4ecc-8176-33fe59ad6b0c" rel="nofollow">Townhall.com blog post for Nov 9</a>.</p>
<p>Like it or not, there are only two viable trains right now: Giuliani&#8217;s or Romney&#8217;s.  And only one of those has it right on the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Human Life Amendment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://www.jaredbridges.net/archives/2007/11/07/fred-thompson-federalism-and-the-protection-of-human-life/comment-page-1/#comment-101598</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:00:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jaredbridges.net/archives/2007/11/07/fred-thompson-federalism-and-the-protection-of-human-life/#comment-101598</guid>
		<description>Glad to see you join Joe Carter in jumping off the Fred Thompson train. I invite you to consider supporting Mike Huckabee, who is not only right on the issues, but is convincing when he speaks about the issues. Being right and being persausive is a good one-two punch for a president to have.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glad to see you join Joe Carter in jumping off the Fred Thompson train. I invite you to consider supporting Mike Huckabee, who is not only right on the issues, but is convincing when he speaks about the issues. Being right and being persausive is a good one-two punch for a president to have.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron Hartikka</title>
		<link>http://www.jaredbridges.net/archives/2007/11/07/fred-thompson-federalism-and-the-protection-of-human-life/comment-page-1/#comment-101319</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Hartikka</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:12:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jaredbridges.net/archives/2007/11/07/fred-thompson-federalism-and-the-protection-of-human-life/#comment-101319</guid>
		<description>Fred&#039;s not making a lot of sense to me either. I like your point about federalism.

Right or wrong, it is quite possible that the states will get the right to choose. This could be more than just a change of venue though: Some state might do something with its choice that led to a resolution. Don&#039;t laugh, resolution is possible, though hard to imagine.

Lincoln, in the first debate, said, &quot;My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,-to their own native land.&quot; He did not foresee the resolution of slavery. Jefferson had envisioned deportation too. The tug of war over them is misplaced. 

Some (tough?) questions for you:

*I* think we should overlook, just for example, this...

Ephesians 6:5: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,

... and call slavery wrong.
 
But why would *you* would overlook it?

How do you know a fetus is a person?
 
Where does the Fourteenth amendment protect them?
 
What penalty should a woman face if she has an abortion?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fred&#8217;s not making a lot of sense to me either. I like your point about federalism.</p>
<p>Right or wrong, it is quite possible that the states will get the right to choose. This could be more than just a change of venue though: Some state might do something with its choice that led to a resolution. Don&#8217;t laugh, resolution is possible, though hard to imagine.</p>
<p>Lincoln, in the first debate, said, &#8220;My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,-to their own native land.&#8221; He did not foresee the resolution of slavery. Jefferson had envisioned deportation too. The tug of war over them is misplaced. </p>
<p>Some (tough?) questions for you:</p>
<p>*I* think we should overlook, just for example, this&#8230;</p>
<p>Ephesians 6:5: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,</p>
<p>&#8230; and call slavery wrong.</p>
<p>But why would *you* would overlook it?</p>
<p>How do you know a fetus is a person?</p>
<p>Where does the Fourteenth amendment protect them?</p>
<p>What penalty should a woman face if she has an abortion?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Let&#8217;s Get Political: 11/9 Roundup &#124; Said At Southern Seminary</title>
		<link>http://www.jaredbridges.net/archives/2007/11/07/fred-thompson-federalism-and-the-protection-of-human-life/comment-page-1/#comment-101297</link>
		<dc:creator>Let&#8217;s Get Political: 11/9 Roundup &#124; Said At Southern Seminary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:44:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jaredbridges.net/archives/2007/11/07/fred-thompson-federalism-and-the-protection-of-human-life/#comment-101297</guid>
		<description>[...] Bridges analyses Fred Thompson&#8217;s federalism through the lens of the Abortion [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Bridges analyses Fred Thompson&#8217;s federalism through the lens of the Abortion [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
