Women Who Support Ron Paul: What About Your Reproductive Freedom?, page 17

privacy

Pages: << 14 15 16 17 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 12 times

reply posted on 7-1-2012 @ 04:58 PM by followtheevidence

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Wouldn't that then be the job of the citizens to vote in representatives who don't support this? Or are we absolving citizens of their responsibility in the legislative process?

And again, there would be NO guarantee that the federal gov't would continue to sanction abortion on a national level forever. Our Government just decided your body isn't guaranteed freedom from indefinite detention or a trial by jury. What makes you think they actually care about your right to an abortion if they don't care about right to habeas corpus??

Montana has legalized medicinal marijuana ... that didn't stop the Feds from barging in and raiding legal growing facilities because under US Federal Law, marijuana is still an illegal substance. The joys of an overreaching, unrestrained centralized Gov't which has no respect for state's rights!

The Constitution says nothing on murder, abortion, manslaughter, etc,. It left criminal and civil laws up to the states. The Federal Government needs to get out of the abortion decision.

Spin this argument how you will, but one random court-case doesn't override the Constitution.

reply posted on 7-1-2012 @ 05:10 PM by Benevolent Heretic

reply to post by followtheevidence

Originally posted by followtheevidence
Wouldn't that then be the job of the citizens to vote in representatives who don't support this?

I'd rather vote in a president who will stand up for and protect the rights of women, not just in my state, but in Oregon, Ohio, Arizona, and every state of this country.

Or are we absolving citizens of their responsibility in the legislative process?

This is a typical position of some people... Demanding my privacy is seen as violating their right to exercise their will over me through legislation... Bah! What a victim stance!

But to answer your question, other citizens have neither the right nor the responsibility to legislate what I do to my body. They can legislate to their hearts' content, but they won't violate my privacy.

reply posted on 7-1-2012 @ 05:35 PM by followtheevidence

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by followtheevidence

Originally posted by followtheevidence
Wouldn't that then be the job of the citizens to vote in representatives who don't support this?

I'd rather vote in a president who will stand up for and protect the rights of women, not just in my state, but in Oregon, Ohio, Arizona, and every state of this country.

That's not within his/her Constitutional authority.

This is a typical position of some people... Demanding my privacy is seen as violating their right to exercise their will over me through legislation... Bah! What a victim stance!

Victims? No victims here except for the ones that you create by deliberately inducing cardiac arrest ... "you" as in the collective you, those who advocate for abortions after a heartbeat is detected.

But to answer your question, other citizens have neither the right nor the responsibility to legislate what I do to my body. They can legislate to their hearts' content, but they won't violate my privacy.

They already have ... NDAA 2012, illegal surveillance, TSA, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, National ID Act, etc., etc.

Again, there is no guarantee that the Federal Gov't would actually uphold your right to an abortion as they clearly don't care about your indefinite right to privacy.

The Federal Government raided the homes and livelihoods of citizens acting within the legal framework per their state.

Once you extend that level of power to an unrestrained Government, there is no reason to believe they will act in your favor.

Best to restrain their legal clout and not give them that opportunity in the first place. As soon as you give them a stake in this decision, they HAVE the ability to act in either direction. Which means, they can nationalize the matter of abortion in either direction

edit on 7-1-2012 by followtheevidence because: clarification

reply posted on 7-1-2012 @ 06:33 PM by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by followtheevidence
That's not within his/her Constitutional authority.

To enforce the Constitution is not within the president's authority?

"you" as in the collective you, those who advocate for abortions after a heartbeat is detected.

I do not advocate for abortion at any time, ever, at all. I belong to no "collective".

[quote
They already have ... NDAA 2012, illegal surveillance, TSA, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, National ID Act, etc., etc.

So, I should encourage them to further violate my rights with their legislation? Because "they're already doing it"? I shouldn't mind further intrusion... because it's already happening? Is that really your position?

As soon as you give them a stake in this decision, they HAVE the ability to act in either direction. Which means, they can nationalize the matter of abortion in either direction

You're right, There's no guarantee that abortion will always be federally legal. But it has been since 1973 and the way it is now is a LOT better than it would be if each state had its way. It's very unlikely that the feds will make abortion illegal. Conservatives in Congress (like Ron Paul) have tried and tried and tried. And it just won't pass a bipartisan Congress. States would be MUCH more successful and Paul knows that.

I understand your position, We just disagree.

reply posted on 7-1-2012 @ 07:25 PM by followtheevidence

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

To enforce the Constitution is not within the president's authority?

The Constitution says nothing about abortion. It left civil/criminal laws to the States.

I do not advocate for abortion at any time, ever, at all. I belong to no "collective".

A semantic argument. This is tiring. You and everyone else who argue for a woman's right to an abortion, who participate in maintaining its legal status, and who perform/have abortions are all part of a process which includes inducing cardiac arrest. If that isn't a problem for you, so be it.

So, I should encourage them to further violate my rights with their legislation? Because "they're already doing it"? I shouldn't mind further intrusion... because it's already happening? Is that really your position?

Wow. Given what you know of my stance, would this really be my position or are you just being sardonic?

The very system that you would ask to preserve your right to an abortion is the very system assaulting your rights on EVERY other front.

The platform by which they are stripping your rights away is the very platform that renders their illegal actions possible - cherry picking and narrowing in on specific issues and legislative actions within that platform while simultaneously leaving the platform itself untouched does absolutely nothing.

Talk about encouragement. By saying to the Gov't - "I realize you have stripped me of various critical birthrights guaranteed by virtue of my citizenship. Nevertheless, I am STILL going to rely on you to enforce the very few remaining rights I have" --- is, by definition, encouraging them. You are acknowledging them as an authority figure when by all accounts their abuses of power have effectively stripped them of authority.

Because they do not obey the Constitution, nor the will of the people, they have LOST their authority - but you GIVE them authority when you ask them to EXERCISE authority.

Appealing to a system that pillages your rights to preserve your rights is a logically defunct DEAD END.

It makes no sense. You can't have it both ways.

You're right, There's no guarantee that abortion will always be federally legal. But it has been since 1973 and the way it is now is a LOT better than it would be if each state had its way. It's very unlikely that the feds will make abortion illegal. Conservatives in Congress (like Ron Paul) have tried and tried and tried. And it just won't pass a bipartisan Congress. States would be MUCH more successful and Paul knows that.

Yeah that's what I thought about Habeas Corpus.

A central maxim decreed by the Constitution which has been around a lot longer than abortion.

But yeah, a bipartisan Congress didn't seem tantamount in stopping that from passing.

edit on 7-1-2012 by followtheevidence because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-1-2012 @ 09:25 PM by Annee

So we get 50 little countries. Those countries begin making their own rules/laws. Say one is heavily populated by Christians. Rules/Laws will soon reflect those beliefs. People from other states decide they want to live under Christian rule - they move in - others move out. Soon they begin spreading to neighboring "countries". 2 countries side by side - decide to join as one state. Maybe a 3rd joins them. This religious ideology country now gains more power and elected officials for what is left of a Federal Government.

Other countries follow suit - - building their country by ideology like people.

Soon we will have fighting tribes just like in the Middle East - - all vying for power and trying to force their specific ideology on others.

Some people are complacent - - - countries start buying these complacent people to build up their empire.

This is what ME ME ME - - its all about ME and my needs - - - will become in the future if individual states become the power.

reply posted on 8-1-2012 @ 06:59 AM by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by followtheevidence
The Constitution says nothing about abortion.

Talk to the Supreme Court. I'm not going to argue Roe V. Wade with you.

You and everyone else who argue for a woman's right to an abortion, who participate in maintaining its legal status, and who perform/have abortions are all part of a process which includes inducing cardiac arrest. If that isn't a problem for you, so be it.

And you and everyone else who argue for suppressing a woman's right to her own body, who participate in using the government to legislate YOUR morality, and who advocate for making abortion illegal are all part of a process which includes the systematic violation of the privacy, freedom and rights of our citizens.

I'm fighting for freedom here. You're fighting for more government control over people's personal and private decisions. Sorry. There's no way I'm going to agree with that.

reply posted on 14-1-2012 @ 07:28 AM by Benevolent Heretic

OK. I'm getting closer to the truth here. And I'm not happy....

For those of you saying that states are unlikely to make abortion illegal...

24 States Enacted 92 Abortion Restrictions In 2011

Texas just passed a law REQUIRING Doctors to give abortion patients a sonogram before having an abortion. The government is FORCING doctors too give patients an unnecessary medical procedure at least 24 hours before performing an abortion. If a woman goes to her Dr. for an abortion, she must undergo an unnecessary medical procedure, view and hear the results, and then wait 24 hours before having the abortion... This is government control for political reasons!

And Ron Paul supports it 100%!

CNN

"This clears the way for the enforcement of an insulting and intrusive law whose sole purpose is to harass women and dissuade them from exercising their constitutionally protected reproductive rights," Northrup said in a statement. "Until today, every court that has reviewed similarly intrusive laws have ruled the laws unconstitutional."
...
The bill generated some controversy in Texas but easily passed through the state's House and Senate, both of which are controlled by Republicans.

That's right. Controlled by Republicans. This invasive, government-intrusive law - that forces doctors to make women go through a medical procedure and view the results - was made by republicans...

And what does Ron Paul have to say about this Texas Law that invades the privacy and and uses the government's force to attempt to control the medical choices of women? He says it should have always been a Texas position.

Ron Paul Hates Invasive Government, but Supports State-mandated Sonograms

Paul, who opposes abortion rights, has consistently railed against intrusive Big Brother government when it comes to other issues, especially health care reform. But it’s hard to imagine anything more literally invasive than a required sonogram.

In fact, Dr. Paul’s colleagues in the Texas Medical Association came out against the law last year, saying it “not only sets a dangerous precedent of legislation prescribing the details of the practice of medicine, but it also clearly mandates that physicians practice in a manner inconsistent with medical ethics.”

This just proves my point that all politicians want to restrict our rights. They just want to take different ones.
Both Sides Want to Restrict Our Rights - Just DIfferent Ones

Pages: << 14 15 16 17 >> ^^TOP^^