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: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Hi, Kali! Haven't seen you for a while for some reason.

Women who think they have a "choice" to do what they want with their bodies have been deceived. They have "permission". He wants to move the permission that the federal government gives to women down to the individual states.

This is actually something I tend to disagree with him on. While I'm a firm believer in states' rights, the abortion issue is so ingrained in our culture, and has been decided by the federal courts for so long, that moving it to individual states would be pointless and detrimental to our society as a whole.

/TOA




posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

No it doesn't refer to a penalty however it defines by law a fertilized egg as a person and affords protection as so. Congress does not make State laws that I am aware of, therefor this would be a federal mandate, wouldn't it?

The states also currently have the right to afford protection to those on death row, those killed justifiably while committing robbery, and those killed accidentally by drivers being stung by bees in their cars as well, Kali.

This is a federal recognition (for the scope of the legislation itself, not *requiring* the states to recognize such, as you can review in the proposed amendments to the federal register as contained in the legislation itself) that life begins at conception, but the handling of that life is still entirely up to the states, as it already is in all these other cases of life being terminated prematurely.

Just as it doesn't propose that the states have to change their existing handling of these other instances in any way, it doesn't dictate that they have to handle the abortion issue one way or the other - just that it's up to them to do so if they see fit like they already do with other terminations of life. It's already commonly recognized that people who have already been born are people, but they can be killed as the states see fit or people not punished for doing so under certain circumstances - as many states would choose to handle abortion as well.

Whether is RIGHT or not, people and groups already terminate recognized life with the sanction of the states - this case would be no different.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Women who think they have a "choice" to do what they want with their bodies have been deceived.


Oh really? And the "property rights" libertarians are going to tell them how they should manage their bodies and what special laws apply to them, huh?



They have "permission". He wants to move the permission that the federal government gives to women down to the individual states.


What permission? Roe V Wade made it clear, woman are the only ones who should make the decision, not the federal government and not the state governments. You want to give state governments the right to go telling woman what they can't and can do with their bodies? Good luck, you're doing a great job seperating yourselfs from the social republican establishment.

I'm sure when Paulers try and pull this off, they'll get the tea parties to go out to washington in support. This will be a great opportunity for them to market themselves as individualist libertarians, huh?
www.now.org...

Permission he says folks. Woman were given permission.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


You missed my edit



reply to post by The Old American
 


Hey TOA, we take different avenues here but end up at the same location so I'll leave it at the lol. Good to see you



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Are you a woman Kali? Did you know the government granted you permission to do what you want with your body? Just to remind you, you got permission from the men in DC.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 
YOU DID THAT ON PURPOSE JUST TO MAKE ME LOOK STUPID!

*grin*


As far as a comparison to death row inmates goes, the death penalty is exactly what it says it is, a penalty...sentenced to a person declared guilty of a capital crime by a jury of peers.

True enough, but my point is that it (and the other examples, including some I likely didn't think to provide) are still lawful terminations of life.

So, even though Paul's bill at some level says life starts at conception - that doesn't really mean much, or change the fact that the states could still do whatever they wanted with it as they will also likely find sociopolitical justifications for it in a good many cases, if they choose to get involved either way.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I am a woman. I think you may have taken TOA wrong here. Though he and I disagree on a lot, he is always respectful IMO.

reply to post by Praetorius
 


I did

and I'll have to disagree with you again, I don't think a precedent (and setting one would be necessary here) could be set for terminating a "life" that hasn't been tried and convicted of a capital crime. I'm sure Ron Paul is aware of this.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

I did :p

*shakes fist*


and I'll have to disagree with you again, I don't think a precedent (and setting one would be necessary here) could be set for terminating a "life" that hasn't been tried and convicted of a capital crime. I'm sure Ron Paul is aware of this.

I can live with that, since I already know I'm right and you're wrong


Seriously, though - and sorry if I'm just losing your train of thought, please clarify as needed - my point otherwise is that when people accidentally kill someone (manslaughter of various degrees) or intentionally kills someone in self-defense (justified homicide), the states already have lesser, or in a good many cases, no penalty. There's your analogues for what you're concerned about as far as this 'definition of life at conception' issue goes - there are already precedents, in that the states have already decided common people can legally terminate a life - some, I believe, even extending this to euthanasia of various sorts, and I believe abortion would likely be included under that last umbrella if they didn't come up with some other classification for it.

As such, it doesn't really matter if the definition did extend to the states - they and the people can still decide it is justifiable to end life as they see fit, no reason to think it would automatically become murder across the board.
edit on 9/6/2011 by Praetorius because: crikey.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
So you think allowing the states to decide whether or not Abortion should be legal and how it should be defined is circumventing the constitution??

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." -- The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution......

This means and was interpreted as all powers not specifically granted to the federal government in the constitution are reserved to the states or to the people..

If you can find the power to regulate reproductive policy in the constitution I will bow my head and admit my defeat.

OP Seriously?

As per the above the states should have the ability to choose whether or not they want Abortion to be legalized or not and should be able to determine their own definition as it is their right given to them by the 10th amendment of the constitution or to the people.

Ron Paul debate or not... the states clearly are supposed to have more power than the federal government... Perhaps you should blame them for circumventing the constitution by bullying states to pass specific laws or loose their infrastructure funding.
edit on 6-9-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by The Old American
Women who think they have a "choice" to do what they want with their bodies have been deceived.


Oh really? And the "property rights" libertarians are going to tell them how they should manage their bodies and what special laws apply to them, huh?


Not sure how property rights are in any way pertinent here. Bodies are not property (until it's a cadaver). You must be just wanting to pick a fight as usual.


What permission? Roe V Wade made it clear, woman are the only ones who should make the decision, not the federal government and not the state governments.


Yes, permission by the state. Roe v. Wade gives women the permission to do with their bodies as they want to do.


You want to give state governments the right to go telling woman what they can't and can do with their bodies? Good luck, you're doing a great job seperating yourselfs from the social republican establishment.

I'm sure when Paulers try and pull this off, they'll get the tea parties to go out to washington in support. This will be a great opportunity for them to market themselves as individualist libertarians, huh?
www.now.org...


I don't know how you could read my saying "I tend to disagree with Ron Paul on this" as me "wanting to give state governments the right to go telling woman (really? telling woman?) what they can't and ca do with their bodies". Unless you completely disregarded my post and spoke, yet again, without knowing any facts at all.

Since you didn't read my post, I'll clarify what I said:

I disagree with Ron Paul on this.The issue should be left as it is, with federal authority. I agree with states' rights on a lot of issues, but this is not one of them, as abortion is too divisive to be governed by "local standards".

You're so automatically argumentative that even when we're on the same side on something, you have to pick a fight. That's pretty pathetic.

/TOA
edit on 6-9-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Is an unborn fetus just a group of cells lining a woman's uterus, the property of a woman, The property of the State, or a pre-born entity with individual rights as a human being?
edit on 6-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 



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...

Very interesting and informative site.

Quad



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

reply to post by Quadrivium
 


What does this have to do with Ron Paul's deceptive stance on abortion? Saying it's the State's right to decide on whether abortion is allowed or not, while trying to pass a law that define abortion as murder. A state can't decide to allow murder now can it?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


I think you are reading to much into what I wrote. Yes, states could potentially create provisions of law that would deem life as not protected in terms of certain conceptions (i.e. Rape, Incest, etc.). The only problem I have with the wording of the law is that it mandates the states comply with life definition at the point of conception. This is a slippery slope, especially in terms of weakening the power of judicial review our founders used to protect us from over reaching legislative attempts. I do not like federal mandates of most any kind, and this law could potentially be interpreted as such, unless it is clearly defined states could nullify that definition for certain reasons they feel justified. However, the law as it is written currently does not give that express authorization.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 
Perhaps, and my apologies if so. I just don't really understand this concern as the states already handle their own laws, allowances, and penalties for the termination of what no one contests is already life (as in the examples I've been going back-and-forth with the VERY-tolerant Kali on previously).

Thanks for the response, I'm just sorry hypocrisy on Paul's part is being read in here when it seems clear to me the wording merely extends to the newly-conceived the same weight of measure given to the already-born as mentioned, without allowing any wiggle room for an escalation to the federal courts (as per the stated intent of the legislation).

Have a great night.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Not sure how property rights are in any way pertinent here. Bodies are not property


Your own body is not your property? Thankyou for clarifying yet another one of your twisted positions. I guess this was an excellent explanation for slavery back in the days as well.



Yes, permission by the state.


Permission would imply that you require authority from somebody else in order to do something. You don't require permission from government authorities to do something to your body, unless you'd have us believe that the government controls every action we commit with our bodies.



I don't know how you could read my saying "I tend to disagree with Ron Paul on this"


How can you disagree with Ron Pauls stance on his matter when his position is clear, he supports state governments to dictate what a woman can do to her body, and you support this as well. I'm not so much concerned about Ron Pauls moral issues on this. There are many pro-choicers who believe that abortion is the wrong road, while opposing any government involvement in the matter. I'm concerned about his legal stance on the matter, where states can dictate a woman's body, and you have appeared to support and agree with him on this matter time and time again.


Since you didn't read my post, I'll clarify what I said:


You don't need to clarify what you said. Afew threads back you argued that states had a role in these decisions, even over matters of racial segregation and slavery. When I posed the same point about abortion the last time, you decided to rationalize Paul's stance by referencing a libertarian website as to how this should be a states issue. Just before that post, you made a point about how women don't really own their bodies, how none of us do.

So which is it? Make up your mind. Either you think Paul is completely off the table with this or not. Because from the sounds of your responding posts, you seem to flip flop continiously. So you disagree with Paul now? You well and truly demontrate how inconsistent his supporters are.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Is an unborn fetus just a group of cells lining a woman's uterus, the property of a woman, The property of the State, or a pre-born entity with individual rights as a human being?
edit on 6-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Why can't it be the property of the woman and the man? I love how the man is always excluded from this equation. If it belonged solely to the woman she would be able to give birth through asexual reproduction.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I am a woman. I think you may have taken TOA wrong here.


I don't think most Ron Paul supporters are so much concerned with true liberty and freedom, it's a face for their social agendas. They are the same ilk as the Bachmann and Palin supporters, just a rebranding in my opinion. You see things differently Kali, that's fine.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
OP Seriously?

As per the above the states should have the ability to choose whether or not they want Abortion to be legalized or not and should be able to determine their own definition as it is their right given to them by the 10th amendment of the constitution or to the people.


Let's rephrase that:
"As per the above the states should have the ability to choose whether or not they want slavery to be legalized or not and should be able to determine their own definition as it is their right given to them by the 10th amendment of the constitution or to the people."

Now, I will grant that there are people in this country who believe that the civil war was completely justified because the states had the constitutional right to restrict the individual rights of its citizens. Unfortunately for them, the federal constitution disagrees with the notion that the states, or anyone for that matter, should be allowed to restrict these rights.

If Ron Paul believes that anyone should be allowed to restrict the rights of others he does not stand for liberty in any way, shape or form. Regardless of how many times he says the word 'constitution'.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Is an unborn fetus just a group of cells lining a woman's uterus, the property of a woman, The property of the State, or a pre-born entity with individual rights as a human being?
edit on 6-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Why can't it be the property of the woman and the man? I love how the man is always excluded from this equation. If it belonged solely to the woman she would be able to give birth through asexual reproduction.


Thank you for that response. I personally believe that the parents are the guardian of the child. This means that while the child isn't the "property" of the parents, they are charged with the nurturing and care of the child until the child is ready to leave the nest. I purposely posed my question as I did to make people think. If the child is the "property" of the State, then the parents lose their authority. I am totally against this. I have posted on the subject of parental authority vs the state before. But the point of what "property" the child is, is that each person, I believe, belongs to our Creator, and has his/her own individual identity in God, and is therefore separate from the woman's body, and science even confirms this, the baby has its own new set of genes and chromosomes which was recombined by the joining of the parents genes and chromosomes, and the new life begins. I believe life begins at conception.
The pro-choice movement has purposely tried to confound people with claims that the fetus is just cells lining the uterus, but we know that the fetus is it's own being. They try to obfuscate the issue by suggesting that the baby is not viable till it can survive outside the womb, but we know even natural born premature babies sometimes do not survive after birth, and require intervention sometimes. The baby needs its mother as well, for if we did not have medical intervention, the baby would certainly die. Then they try to say it cannot feel pain, but science has also proven that the fetus even early on responds to outside stimulus.
I personally believe that the spark of life is within the unborn and that the soul is aware as the baby develops. That is of course religious and spiritual, but many priests and doctors know and admit that the new life begins at conception. It then becomes an intuitive spiritual understanding and awareness of the child for the wonderful creation that it is.
thanks for listening.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join