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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

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.



You make the mistake of equating true liberty with the right to do anything anywhere at any time. Society would not be civil if that were so.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You make the mistake of equating true liberty with the right to do anything anywhere at any time.


That would be anarchism. True iberty is about leaving the adults to mind their own property and to mind themselves. What they choose to do doesn't concern you. Supporting rights and freedoms in this country doesn't automatically equate to anarchism. I'm a "liberal commie statist" incase you forgot what you labelled me as previously thirdeyeofhorus, let's remain consistent here.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You make the mistake of equating true liberty with the right to do anything anywhere at any time.


That would be anarchism. True iberty is about leaving the adults to mind their own property and to mind themselves. What they choose to do doesn't concern you. Supporting rights and freedoms in this country doesn't automatically equate to anarchism. I'm a "liberal commie statist" incase you forgot what you labelled me as previously thirdeyeofhorus, let's remain consistent here.



I never said that supporting rights and freedoms equates to anarchy, I merely suggested that there are reasonable limits to liberty when it comes to harming other life, and the unborn baby is life. Life begins at conception.
edit on 7-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I do think you tend to lean a bit Statist in a number of issues. Now here, as it was discussed in other posts, the State has given you permission to do certain things as per Roe v Wade. Does that make the State right? No, it just makes it powerful.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I never said that supporting rights and freedoms equates to anarchy,


Nope, you never said it, but you certainly implied it when I argued this in the case of woman making these decisions over their own bodies.

Just curious, what exactly is going to happen when you implement these abortion laws? How many millions are you prepared to throw at monitoring and harassing woman who make these decisions? Talk about fiscal conservatism.


I merely suggested that there are reasonable limits to liberty when it comes to harming other life,


No there isn't. Masturbation isn't illegal, killing an ant isn't illegal, killing an animal isn't illegal, these are not beyond the limits of liberty. "Harming other life" you say? And what about the death penalty? We're harming other life, human life, because we found them legally guilty of a crime, what about the innocent who have been harmed for a crime they didn't commit? There are just so many things I can point out that's wrong or hypocritical with that statement.


unborn baby is life. Life begins at conception.


Says who? you? Who gave you the authority to make that decision?

Those on the right believe they have a sense of entitlement over this world and over how things must work. Times have changed.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I'm really confounded here. I make my position so perfectly clear, that even you can understand it, and yet you don't. Since I don't speak your dialect of Crazy Talk, and Babelfish doesn't have a Crazy Talk translator so that you can easily understand, maybe someone else here can translate for me:

I am against Ron Paul's idea that abortion should be handled by the states.

Simple. Short. Clear.

/TOA



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I'm really confounded here. I make my position so perfectly clear,


Perfectly clear? All I've seen you do is justify the position of Paul and in general libertarians over this issue, you further this argument by stating that women don't really own their bodies as do the rest of us, and then you turn around and say you disagree with Ron paul.


I am against Ron Paul's idea that abortion should be handled by the states.


Then stop defending his legal position on this matter. You're either against it or not.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I am against Ron Paul's idea that abortion should be handled by the states.

/TOA



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Yes,I agree with Ron Paul,the right to pass laws should be in state's hands ,not federal .A single federal fascist or extremist could easily alter laws from the top,but if states are main powers,then there is reduced probability of fascism/socialism.

So,the right to abortion should belong to the states.If you don't want babies and your state has anti-abortion laws ,then keep your legs closed.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
I missed this one, sorry about that.


Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I do think you tend to lean a bit Statist in a number of issues. Now here, as it was discussed in other posts, the State has given you permission to do certain things as per Roe v Wade. Does that make the State right? No, it just makes it powerful.


So Im a statist barbarian anarchist to you? That's a unique mix.

Regarding the states giving us "permission" to do things as per Roe V Wade, this statement doesn't make sense. Abortion wasn't always a legal question, it wasn't always illegal. You assume that states always held this magical authority where people had to abide by it's "permission" to carry out abortions but this was never so. The personal matter of abortion became public when the government, state and federal, decided to get involved. Just because abortion is not illegal doesn't make it morally right, of course not. If a woman decides to carry out an abortion for the sake of social convenience, she is not taking responsibility, she is careless, and so is her partner in the making. Her decision however should be hers, she should own up to the consequences of that decision as well, it need not involve you.

There was a question I posed to you just before. How do you intend to enforce anti abortion laws? How much tax payer money are you prepared to throw at law enforcement, government officials, to monitor each and every women out there? Is this going to prevent abortions? Or are you willing to waste tax payer time, money and the arrest of some women, to push for your own political and social agenda?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by josh2009s
reply to post by Kali74
 


This won't turn into a Pro-Choice Vs Pro-life debate. Rather, a debate on the importance of the individual states to make their own laws. And in case you did not know, that is how it is supposed to be. It is, after all, written in the Constitution.



back in the day you could get an abortion in NY.


i'm from MA, so that was the closest place.

i was sure it was always like that since then.

need an abortion? take a road trip.


big deal, don't make a federal case out of it, dude!




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
The constitution operates on the theory that there are certain inalienable rights that the states or federal government CAN’T obviate. And if they do the people have recourse—THE COURTS. Without those courts then we basically are in a dictatorship. For this so-called libertarian to remove the very thing that is the final arbiter of the people’s rights, OUR RIGHTS, is a big hole in the integrity of his philosophy.

If we look at what the courts have done throughout history to maintain justice and freedom we would understand this concept clearly.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Look, I am on your side with states rights. The wording of the bill just seems like it is forcing states to accept a definition of life. Your argument is echoed by Ron Paul himself. I do not deny this. What I question is exactly what the commentator states in the below video that some people would interpret the statute or constitutional provision of life to be a federal level issue. I do understand Ron Paul's stance because he would never mandate a state to comply with a federal definition and I agree that he wouldn't do this, but others might.

At 17:00 in the following video Ron Paul discusses his stance on right to life issues. This video was filmed 2 days ago so it might be instructive of this thread.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 
Fair enough, and you can definitely look at it that way - the catch is that is squarely puts any handling (or lack thereof) of said 'life' in the hands of the states and prevents federal courts from addressing it one way or the other.

And as the states already handle somewhat-related cases of life without issue as I've mentioned previously (doctor-assisted suicide/euthanasia, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, etc.), it doesn't really do much beyond saying the states & people are solely responsible for any and all determinations on how to handle said life.

And, it is honestly just a common-sense definition of life as well. The wording doesn't argue for personhood, etc., just that life begins at conception which in some degrees really is fairly indisputable. As another member mentioned on one of the other recent abortion threads (and Paul has discussed elsewhere himself), a fetus & mother at any stage of pregnancy are accorded certain legal rights in the event that someone else causes fetal death against the will of the mother.

Be well.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
The constitution operates on the theory that there are certain inalienable rights that the states or federal government CAN’T obviate. And if they do the people have recourse—THE COURTS. Without those courts then we basically are in a dictatorship. For this so-called libertarian to remove the very thing that is the final arbiter of the people’s rights, OUR RIGHTS, is a big hole in the integrity of his philosophy.

If we look at what the courts have done throughout history to maintain justice and freedom we would understand this concept clearly.


Exactly right! I don't want any road blocks in any avenues of government that I, as an american, have the CONSTITUTIONAL right to. Any issue becomes the jurisdiction of the Courts if the People bring it to them. The People brought the abortion issue to the Courts. What right does any government elected official have to take that away?

reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Thank-you for posting that video with a time mark to the relevant part to the topic. Ron Paul said it himself...I will paraphrase...Thousands of lives will be saved because the moment the Sanctity of Life Act is passed into law, no abortions can be performed until States set precedent. No choice or personal freedom there!

He then eludes to, as Praetorius has mentioned, individual States policies on the death penalty etc, then he mumbles through when asked about the 14th amendment. What he skirts around very plainly obvious to me is the fact that you cannot cause the death of a "person" without violating the 14th Amendment (no person is allowed to be deprived of life, liberty,or property without "due process of law.").

Ron Paul is lying when he says it's a matter to be decided by States, when if he has his way it won't be a matter at all and we as citizens of this nation will have no where to go with it. What else is he lying about!?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I am not sure that he is lying about it. I do think that he is believing that others would follow along with his approach though. He has a solid argument about how states could ultimately control this matter; however, he even admits that others could interpret the federal law as a directive to the states. He also recognizes that immediately following passage of the law no state would be able to perform an abortion without government in each state passing a law. While I do think Ron Paul has good intentions to return the power to the states to decide this issue, the method in which he endorses, I believe is too much of a slippery slope to be used by those to expand federal law.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
there is nothing in the constitution about abortion so, by the tenth amendment, it's a state issue. Case closed.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45
there is nothing in the constitution about abortion so, by the tenth amendment, it's a state issue. Case closed.


Are you saying that because an issue isn't mentioned in the Constitution it is a States matter and cannot go any further?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You make the mistake of equating true liberty with the right to do anything anywhere at any time.


That would be anarchism. True iberty is about leaving the adults to mind their own property and to mind themselves. What they choose to do doesn't concern you. Supporting rights and freedoms in this country doesn't automatically equate to anarchism. I'm a "liberal commie statist" incase you forgot what you labelled me as previously thirdeyeofhorus, let's remain consistent here.



I never said that supporting rights and freedoms equates to anarchy, I merely suggested that there are reasonable limits to liberty when it comes to harming other life, and the unborn baby is life. Life begins at conception.
edit on 7-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Actually....thats not true....the SPERM and EGG cells are BOTH ALIVE prior to conception....which shows how flawed your arguement truly is. Hell....a HEAD OF CABBAGE is ALIVE! So are my house plants....as well as my cat and the crab grass growing near my pool. The yogurt I eat for lunch is ALIVE....as well as BREAD....CARROTS....TICKS....and the MILLIONS OF DUST MITES that are right now riddled through your hair and skin surface....and lets not forget the MILLIONS OF MITES....creeping around your matress and pillow.

Just because something is ALIVE....does not mean it is SENTIENT....you think nothing immoral when you donate BLOOD....or have a doctor take a BIOPSY. These things are ALIVE TOO....and came from your body as well. So.......logic dictates that your arguguement is FLAWED in that you place so form of MORAL BUBBLE...around a couple of cells that a short time before were existing as aminoacids in the Burger you ate for lunch from a GREASY SPOON or FAST FOOD CHAIN HUT....down the street.

Besides....my Ol" LADY says it is VERY SIMILAR to CAVIAR! Split Infinity



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You make the mistake of equating true liberty with the right to do anything anywhere at any time.


That would be anarchism. True iberty is about leaving the adults to mind their own property and to mind themselves. What they choose to do doesn't concern you. Supporting rights and freedoms in this country doesn't automatically equate to anarchism. I'm a "liberal commie statist" incase you forgot what you labelled me as previously thirdeyeofhorus, let's remain consistent here.



I never said that supporting rights and freedoms equates to anarchy, I merely suggested that there are reasonable limits to liberty when it comes to harming other life, and the unborn baby is life. Life begins at conception.
edit on 7-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Actually....thats not true....the SPERM and EGG cells are BOTH ALIVE prior to conception....which shows how flawed your arguement truly is. Hell....a HEAD OF CABBAGE is ALIVE! So are my house plants....as well as my cat and the crab grass growing near my pool. The yogurt I eat for lunch is ALIVE....as well as BREAD....CARROTS....TICKS....and the MILLIONS OF DUST MITES that are right now riddled through your hair and skin surface....and lets not forget the MILLIONS OF MITES....creeping around your matress and pillow.

Just because something is ALIVE....does not mean it is SENTIENT....you think nothing immoral when you donate BLOOD....or have a doctor take a BIOPSY. These things are ALIVE TOO....and came from your body as well. So.......logic dictates that your arguguement is FLAWED in that you place so form of MORAL BUBBLE...around a couple of cells that a short time before were existing as aminoacids in the Burger you ate for lunch from a GREASY SPOON or FAST FOOD CHAIN HUT....down the street.

Besides....my Ol" LADY says it is VERY SIMILAR to CAVIAR! Split Infinity


This has been on the board without response for a few days....as I knew it would be. Here is the thing about confronting the RELIGIOUS who feel a necessity to preach, criticise and....even worse....ridicule other peoples beliefs and concepts....all the while....GLORIFYING THEIR OWN!

I have nothing against people who are Religios...and actually...if more people actually followed the teachings of BUDDHA, CHRIST....and others....the world would be a better place. Thing is....these historical figures were always teaching TOLLERANCE and asking people to respect each other and not judge or be violent in either actions or mind when encountering others of a different belief or lifestyle.

In my life I have done....questionable things. I am kind by nature but when presented with options of actions that would benifit the majority....but violently effect a minority....reguardless of what that minority or one has done....acting in a cold and methodical manner to get the job done only lasts in your minds thought as THE RIGHT THING TO DO....until you have done it. Once over....regret is inevitable.

A person who can do these things and have no remorse or regret or a concience that will bother them later....is a PSYCHOPATH....and prior screening is done to prevent these people from being on the payroll. Fact is a person who has concerns and has the capacity for compassion and regret...is a much more effective and DANGEROUS tool.

The PSYCHOPATH....will make mistakes and never truly be in control of their decission making abilities as they are governed by a more primative and animalistic thought process that allows ENDORPHINES to flow at a massive quantity and rate as they perform the task....and intoxinates them with pleasure.

The person who has the capacity for compassion and remorse....as they perform the task...has by SHERE WILL...overcome their own natural repulsion to do so. Anyone with a mental capacity strong enough to overcome that and acomplish the task....is not only a very dangerous individual....but is also someone that will have to deal with their own demons after. Split Infinity




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join