It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
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.


The thing is, Ron Paul is essentially not being honest about his stance on abortion, he is saying on one hand he wants to rip the authority away from the courts to protect a womans right to choose, and give it back to individual states, on the other he wants to pass a law that will define abortion as murder. That is an illusion of giving a choice. Women went to the courts to begin with because they were not being allowed their Constitutional freedom to choose by their states nor by their legislators nor by their executive government bodies.
edit on 5-9-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

Originally posted by SunnyDee
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.


The thing is, Ron Paul is essentially not being honest about his stance on abortion, he is saying on one hand he wants to rip the authority away from the courts to protect a womans right to choose, and give it back to individual states, on the other he wants to pass a law that will define abortion as murder. That is an illusion of giving a choice. Women went to the courts to begin with because they were not being allowed their Constitutional freedom to choose by their states nor by their legislators nor by their executive government bodies.
edit on 5-9-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)


I see a similar tendency in several libertarians I know...

They claim to be for (or against) certain things, but they are against the real life policy that would
create the results they claim they are for.

*Claim they are for gays getting wed, but are completely against gay marriage.(the explanations I get
are about as nutty as -> * )



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
My question is this.
If in 1973 the supreme court did not understand when life began how could they possibly make such a monumental decision, legally?
And for all of you who wonder when life begins..................


from the moment when the sperm makes contact with the oocyte, under conditions we have come to understand and describe as normal, all subsequent development to birth of a living newborn is a fait accompli.
That is to say, after that initial contact of spermatozoon and oocyte there is no subsequent moment or stage which is held in arbitration or abeyance by the mother, or the embryo or fetus.
Nor is a second contribution, a signal or trigger, needed from the male in order to continue and complete development to birth.
Human development is a continuum in which so -called stages overlap and blend one into another. Indeed, all of life is contained within a time continuum.
Thus, the beginning of a new life is exacted by the beginning of fertilization, the reproductive event which is the essence of life.
Herein lies the importance of distinguishing between the science of developmental biology and the science of Human Embryology.
Within the science of Human Embryology, the continuum of life is more fully appreciated. The fact that development and developmental principles do not cease with birth becomes more fully realized.
So, the continuum of human development does not cease until death, whenever that may occur, in utero or at 100 years of age.


www.lifeissues.net...

It's would be horrible to admit this now after so many thousands (?) or millions (?) have died, wouldn't it?

No wonder people run from what they know in their hearts to be true.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by josh2009s
reply to post by Kali74
 


Rather, a debate on the importance of the individual states to make their own laws.


I'm sorry many states have proven their incapability of holding fundamental rights and liberties. It was 50 years ago that states dictated where you could go in your own country based on your skin colour, only 50 years ago that states dictated whom you could marry, and they still do it. It was 150 years ago when states allowed for the enslavement of millions of american citizens.

Don't talk to me about states rights. It's a BS excuse for racists and social fanatics to implement their own little places of fascism. I have my constitutional rights and the government, state and federal, can stay the hell out.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
I can tell you what will happen if Ron Paul gets his way. Some states will pass laws banning abortion. Other states will enact laws allowing abortion. And if a person needs an abortion they will travel to the state that allows the abortion and get one. Freedom of choice. In the event all states prohibit abortion this does not preclude a person from traveling to a country that allows it.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
Here is the important point: Ron Paul will not be a dictator


But he wants states to dictate the lives of folks? It's an abuse of the constitution when the federal government does it, but for some reason just wave the magical stick and it's perfectly justifiable for states. Slavery was once though of as a states right, that was the time the federal government had to step in. Either they did, or the people would.

Paulers are quick to once again jump to his defense, but it's evident how similar he really is to the other candidates. The "wars" and the patriot act are not the soul issue of these elections, folks should recognize this.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I'm pro-choice and I'm for Paul.
Look a law like that never passes because the question can't be answered, anyone that would toss that in the ring with this much publicity (rather than earmarked at the bottom of a pile) knows it won't pass. What it will do is grab votes from the religious right votes he needs.

Paul doesn't agree with abortions, but he's not going to outlaw them. He will leave it up to the states and they'll decide. Consequently we may never have to worry about a future politician using the abortion angle to fill the vote gap left from bad policies again.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
I think people are desperately trying to nitpick any flaws that Ron Paul may or may not have and exploit the crap out of it.

It may work, but not on ATS, the majority of people here already know what they believe and firmly believe in it.

Now that its been repeated a thousand times in this thread that Ron Paul wants to bring the power to decide back to the states, let's talk about his amendment.

Remember, Ron Paul is a congressman, he represents people! he has constituents that may or may not want him to represent their views on how certain things are done. Now, do we know Ron Paul is doing this for himself or his constituents? we'll never know and we'll never find out, afterall, it is only a possible scenario to why he introduced this amendment.

He could've done it because he wanted to because that is what he believes, if he did-so what? I'm pro-choice and I seriously don't weigh this particular subject as much as I weigh in his policies on militarism and economy. I respect Ron Paul for defending the constitution and if he wants to introduce new legislation on what is considered life at conception, he will get support or will lack it depending on the will of the people.

So did Ron lie? no.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


So do you want to live in an America where you're protected by your constitution or don't you?


So who are you to tell each state what to do? remember, each state is supposed to be sovereign, why would you want to take that away?

edit on 6-9-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
I think people are desperately trying to nitpick any flaws



Nitpick? And you admit these issues are "flaws" of Ron paul? Well atleast this is something for me to agree with you on. Ron Paul loses me on major issues aside from the wars and marijuana legalization. When he talks about abolishing minimum wage, removing medicare bcause it's unconstutional, when he talks about giving states absolute power over personal issues, these are not flaws that need nitpicking, I assure you.


Now that its been repeated a thousand times in this thread that Ron Paul wants to bring the power to decide back to the states, let's talk about his amendment.

Remember, Ron Paul is a congressman, he represents people!


He represents you and people with your mentality. The kind of mentality whom believes we should leave states to dictate racial, sexual and social issues. As if fascism was only a negative thing in the federal government, put it through to the state governments and it's A-ok. But I understand, the federal government doesn't give you the power to tell a woman what the hell she must do with a body, so you want your state governments to do it for you. I get it. Goldwater and his pro-segregationist buddies argued the same back in the 60's.


I'm pro-choice


No you're not. Pro-choicers believe that the hard choice of abortion for a woman, even in those unfortunate circumstances, should be left to her and her alone. It has nothing to do with the state governments, nothing to do with the federal government. You seem to have no issue willing to compromise on this and allow states to dictate, just to get Ron Paul in power. Pro-choice my ass.
edit on 6-9-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I'm pro-choice and I'm for Paul.


How can those two mix again? Pro-choicers believe that government, state or federal, should state out of the issue of abortion. What kind of pro-choicer are you? the one that believes that it's different when a state government does it?

You're not a pro-choicer I assure you.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   
No individual, no government, has a right to decide if a woman will have an abortion.

That is her choice, and her choice alone.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
Ron Paul the hero of personal choices and freedoms? Only if they fit his ideals. I'm sure many of you already know this but the more internet reading I do, the more I realize people on the internet barely read a word before they go foaming at the mouth.

I know this will turn into a Pro-Choice Vs Pro-life debate. Before it does, I would like to ask all Ron Paul supporters how they feel about this man who says that government has no right to decide anything for you, is going to decide that women can't have an abortion and is going to do it by circumventing the checks and balances system of our three branch government. He claims that he is going to leave it up to individual States to decide whether abortion is legal or not. How can States decide this when he is aiming to pass a law that defines life as starting at conception?



*Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his "We the People Act"

*Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a "Sanctity of Life Act"


RonPaul2012.com

What else is he going to tell us that we have a choice about, that States have a choice about, then make laws that leave us no choice at all?


Your argument is fatally flawed and devoid of any merit as Ron Paul is only enforcing the ideals and beliefs the country was founded upon.

Government is not the "karma police" not in charge of spiritual implications of making such a choice nor in charge of dictating national values. Hopefully, in the future we have better means to address such questions as I am against abortion but with that being said, I am also against the state telling people that they know better because in truth.... They do not.

Government simply is not here to address such tasks and thus, should not be a regulating body for such.

It is not the right of the federal government to decide this matter as they do not posses any knowledge beyond that of the individual that would seek to do such a thing in order to tell them they can or they can not.

A government is not developed nor tolerated in a democratic society to influence and enforce individual decisions that do not rob others of civil liberties, when it does, it is a sign of tyranny.
edit on 6-9-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



If you don't want to play by the rules and federally mandate on abortions, you do not want to follow the constitution? do you want to be defended by the constitution or don't you?


And yes, I am pro-choice and willing to compromise (compromise, have you heard of this word before?) But hey, maybe when Ron Paul becomes president and gets what he has been fighting for, you can move to a state that legalizes abortion.




edit on 6-9-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
'Ah yes, if those irresponsible sluts are going to have sex, they must be punished with a child. And, of course, all concern for the life of this baby ends the instant it is born. I find it telling that this species of Libertarian "Keep the government out of my life!" doesn't include the lives of women.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Weak attempt bud. Yes I am for States rights. It should be up to the States. It is not the Fed's place to stick their nose into this or thousands of other matters. You are just scared to lose the teet of Government control. You know what? It will be a good thing to be free. Don't be scared! It was better than alright before, it can quickly be that way again.

One other thing, why is it a good thing for us to be the busy body of the world, sticking our big fat Federal nose into peoples private business. What business is it of ours? Who made us the conduct monitor of the world and our citizens? Whoever he was he forgot to drop off a check for the service and we is outta bucks.

The question of whether abortion is right or wrong is not the question at all here.
edit on 6-9-2011 by Ittabena because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



If you don't want to play by the rules and federally mandate on abortions,


Federally mandate abortions? Who the heck is forcing anybody to have an abortion? Is this really what you have?

Here's a simple solution. Don't agree with abortion? Don't support it? Simply don't have one, and feel free to criticize others over making personal decisions. Neither the state governments nor the federal government should have any business in mandating this issue to anybody.

You want to talk to me about "mandates" while insisting we should give absolute dictation to the state goverments?


I am pro-choice and willing to compromise


How the hell can you pro-choice and compromise? You're not making any sense. Do you know what pro-choice is? Let's go down this again:


Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term

www.thefreedictionary.com...


Compare pro-life (of an organization, pressure group, etc) supporting the right of a woman to have an abortion

dictionary.reference.com...

You are willing to agree with the state to hold the authority over what is a personal issue, and yet you're pro choice? No issue with state governments stripping that choice away but you're pro-choice? If a state chooses to criminalize a raped woman for making this choice, you'll disagree, but you'll support that governments authority? You cannot have your cake and eat it to. I get it though, Paulers want to act like a none-cohesive group, just like the tea partiers.


(compromise, have you heard of this word before?)


I've heard of the word compromise. Has Ron Paul heard of it? From the sounds of it, the rest of us have to compromise with Ron Paul and his political flaws.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





The thing is, Ron Paul is essentially not being honest about his stance on abortion, he is saying on one hand he wants to rip the authority away from the courts to protect a womans right to choose, and give it back to individual states, on the other he wants to pass a law that will define abortion as murder. That is an illusion of giving a choice. Women went to the courts to begin with because they were not being allowed their Constitutional freedom to choose by their states nor by their legislators nor by their executive government bodies.


Not the Government's place, never was, shouldn't be now. Don't know how I can put it any plainer. Ron wants to bring us back to where we are supposed to be, free. We should have never gotten away from it, and we shouldn't like the Federal meddling in our lives. Do you actually enjoy it, the meddling I mean?
edit on 6-9-2011 by Ittabena because: rephrase



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
I just love this hypocrisy in the post, it illustrates Paulers rather nicely.


Originally posted by Ittabena
Yes I am for States rights. It should be up to the States.



Government control.



sticking our big fat Federal nose into peoples private business.



What business is it of ours?


It sounds as though those "states" are individual persons in the eyes of Ron Paul and his supporters. Fascism is A-ok at a state level, so long as it's not the federal government. You talk about "big fat nose" do ya? Apparently this doesn't exist in the states.

In our history we have seen examples of state governments dictating what rights we held because of our racial and ethnic make up. We've seen state governments allow for the enslavement of fellow americans. We've seen state governments dictate as to whom we can love. And now Paulers want us to go right back and give the powers to the state governments again. Only the federal government can do wrong, eh? The state governments? Ah let nature take it's course. It's hypocrisy at it's finest folks, step right up!



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


The danger is that what happens when the Federal government violates rights, and mandates the states to join them? Then we have 50 states violating rights, and nobody can do a thing. Look at California desperately seeking to legalize marijuana and the federal government is saying no. I am not going to lie and say you do not have a point, but I think we are much more free the closer our power is to us personally--that being the states.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join