Ron Paul Wants To Take Away The Judicial Branch's Authority To Decide On Abortion

Originally posted by josh2009s
reply to post by Kali74

 

Who cares. The states can always go whatever direction they want with abortion. It's then up to the people to vote one way or another. Nothing bad here. Just a Ron Paul bash. Good luck with that.

That's just it the States won't be able to go in whatever direction they want with abortion if Ron Paul has his way. The Sanctity of Life Act redefines life as beginning at conception. That makes abortion murder and therefor illegal.

Where is the choice?

reply to post by redrose123


Yes it's extremely important.

Originally posted by Kali74

Originally posted by josh2009s
reply to post by Kali74

 

Who cares. The states can always go whatever direction they want with abortion. It's then up to the people to vote one way or another. Nothing bad here. Just a Ron Paul bash. Good luck with that.

That's just it the States won't be able to go in whatever direction they want with abortion if Ron Paul has his way. The Sanctity of Life Act redefines life as beginning at conception. That makes abortion murder and therefor illegal.

Where is the choice?

Only at a National level. Same case with marijuana. Mariuana is Illegal Nationally but states such as California follow their own legislation.

reply to post by Kali74


Yes Kali, now that I see where the whole issue is coming from I am very worry also, one thing is to give back the right of states to take matters of laws otherwise been under the Judicial Branch, but another to force state to adopt legislation more legislastion.

This actually very worrisome, see states do have the power to define abortion but they can not ban it without the votes in the states.

I never seen that side of Ron Paul before.

We can protest slaughter houses for their cruel murder of animals yet rally in support of abortion clinics which take the life of innocent children. They argue, “The baby does not feel it”, yet all that shows to me is they think of this being as merely a material object rather than a personal, special, and defenseless being dependent upon a woman to provide for its safety and livelihood. Perhaps by simply condoning abortion as an individual right for women we forgot that there are things more important than individual rights, things that transcend the rational world and enter into the emotional.

I am not siding with one side of this issue of legality or the other that is an issue I think needs to be discussed by the community on a state level. All I am suggesting is that this entire issue, where we can protest slaughter houses, cruelty to animals, discrimination against minorities, and fight for the ‘weak’ yet at the same time argue that murdering a life is perfectly fine on the grounds of rights is disturbing to say the least. You can give me scientific arguments day and night; I am not here to argue that end of it with you because I concede you will win the rational debate. But I urge all people to consider the ‘irrational’ side, the one of natural human prejudice, right and wrong.

Originally posted by josh2009s

Originally posted by Kali74

Originally posted by josh2009s
reply to post by Kali74

 

Who cares. The states can always go whatever direction they want with abortion. It's then up to the people to vote one way or another. Nothing bad here. Just a Ron Paul bash. Good luck with that.

That's just it the States won't be able to go in whatever direction they want with abortion if Ron Paul has his way. The Sanctity of Life Act redefines life as beginning at conception. That makes abortion murder and therefor illegal.

Where is the choice?

Only at a National level. Same case with marijuana. Mariuana is Illegal Nationally but states such as California follow their own legislation.

No, murder is illegal no matter what state you live in. Do you get it yet?

Okay, since this thread confuses me I have to understand something first

So I just made this thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps once I understand more I can participate in this thread

thx

Originally posted by josh2009s

Originally posted by whaaa
Dr. Paul is toast with most women now.

Even my right wing, Baptist, conservative, 75 yr mom, doesn't want some MAN telling her what she can and can't do with her body.

You should explain to your mother that this will only further empower her as she would then be able to directly vote on the issue at hand.

edit on 5-9-2011 by josh2009s because: (no reason given)

I'm pretty sure that she is empowered enough to vote against Dr. Paul and his theocratic ideas; as is my GF.
However he could foster a cottage industry of coathanger twisters.

I haven't made up my mind yet; being a surrealist I'm hoping for exgov Palin to make a run for the WH.

reply to post by marg6043


Thank-you. My fear with his gaining popularity is if he is doing this double talk on abortion what else is he doing this double talk with?

The problem with the whole "states rights" thingie is that this issue was decided in 1865, and the Nation won over the States. Since then the states have attempted here and there to encroach on the national government, but overall, if anything, the power of the central government has grown stronger.

Regardless of what you think about this, remember that there are pros and cons to consider either way. If the central government is not capable of protecting citizen rights on a national basis, then we will have the most backward states enacting the most backward laws, and we will witness the return of back alley abortions, Jim Crow, injustice over justice, rampant corruption (yes, even worse than now), etc. The national government can take away, yes, but it can give too, and it has given us much since this issue was decided.

reply to post by SunnyDee


It’s the federal government’s job to enforce the laws. In the case of Abortion it was the Row Wade case by the Supreme Court that made that law the federal Government are obligated to enforce . . . the freedom of woman to have abortions—free choice.

The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion

en.wikipedia.org...

The court said a woman has a right to abortion based on this privacy claus in the constitution.
No state can countermand that right because it is in the constitution.

BTW states rights are limited by the constitution, in other words if states had unlimited rights we would be fighting the civil was all over again.

Otherwise what could stop a state from bringing back slavery, or any other crazy laws, that can only be challenged by the courts, therfore Pauls idea is dangerous IMO

reply to post by whaaa


You got to be kidding, Sarah for white house, pleeese drill baby drill, I guess Sarah will not be lot behind on Ron Paul when it comes to abortion, been a breeder and all, you know.

reply to post by marg6043


Ron Paul always goes with the Constitution and States Rights being part of it. He does not allow himself to get involved with telling people how to think or decide things Those change like the wind . The constitution puts those issues back where they belong in the locals and states to decide. Not the Federal Government. We have been so deviated from what is and what isn't suppose to be in this country the younger generation just accepts things with out knowing the difference. This country has been derailed and has to get put back on the tracks or life as we know it is over for good.,

reply to post by redrose123


I followed the link provided by Kali, I never been on Ron Paul site before, I was very surprised of what I read, I does worries me.

But then again this how Bush got the votes of the fundamentalist right in 2004 with promised about abortion and then forgot about what he promised.

I would have to say, my iterpretation is Ron Paul does not believe the courts should be making MORAL choices/decisions/ rulings for the people, pretty simple really.
Sometimes moral dicisions are hard to make, especially when it involves a life.
Should the courts make that choice in regards to your loved ones life ?

Funny... if I had done nothing more than read the title of this thread, I would have guessed it to be a PRO Ron Paul piece.

Go figure....

Roe V Wade was decided based upon the 14th Amendment, specifically because state in the past
instituted things like Slavery, trampling the natural rights enumerated in the supreme law of the land,
the Constitution.

Under US common law as it is practiced in the real courts everyday, Constitutional questions are in the federal jurisdiction.

It is this way some states are unable to tyrannize citizens with regional beliefs, like slaves are acceptable
or a women's body is anybodies business but her own.

reply to post by inforeal


I see what you are saying, but say this ruling, RvW, is overturned in the future which is constantly being threatened at every election year, (and one winner might actually have the cajones to follow through on his stump promises) then we have a federal govt deciding what many of us believe is private. For now, we are ok with the fed involved, because there is choice, if it gets reversed federally, I'd hope that if states took back their constitutional rights, there would be many that would keep the choice.

yep some people hide behind their women when it comes to abortion but turn around and have no problems denying other people their rights to smoke or buy a gun.

they tag that as pro choice but giving no choice to others.

congress does not exist to make laws they didnt start out as that butr they sure have become that.

the government was never meant to become the alpha and the omega to the american citizen and if people still dont get that lets put it like this.

the american citizen was never meant to become the slave to the master government but all too many people seem all fine with that arrangement.

national law you cant do anything about however state powers where it was always meant to stay if people didnt like the stupidty of a state they could pick up and leave to a different state who wasnt stupid and if they kept being stupid the state would cease to exist.

whats the matter people all the crap paul takes have you people forgotten what a true liberal means?

in the classical sense and not what it has become to mean.

Here is the important point: Ron Paul will not be a dictator.

So you would have no need to fear for your current protections under the law.
If he is not elected, then you will need to fear for your life and liberty, because hell is coming to this country.
I hope you understand that the wholesale murder and destruction done in our name is not without consequence.
I hope you understand that the police state being put in place is for us.

I really think you need to get your priorities straight.