reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
But if the Sanctity of Life Act passes, abortion will be murder. It removes Supreme Court jurisdiction for abortion cases. There would be no
Abortion would only be murder if a particular state passes a law making it illegal. Some states will, some states wont. And it only says that the
Supreme Court would not have the right to supersede the law of each state.
You would still be granted the appeals process within each state, all the way up to the state Supreme Court.
That's the way I understand it.
I'm not tramping on anyone's rights. He doesn't have the right to discriminate.
Unfortunately, people do have the right to discriminate. Free speech alone gives you that right. I am not saying I agree with it, but people do have
the right to say the dumbest things.
If we make "discriminatory" remarks illegal, anyone in power could use that precedent to outlaw speech that they find personally inappropriate. Then
the law becomes a free-for all in regards to interpretation.
IMO, that would apply to property rights as well. People can do what they want with whatever they want as long as they doesn't violate another's
I think it's stupid to ever want your business to be a "whites only" establishment, but that right must be maintained or we open the door for
government to come in and legislate more things we are not allowed to do on our own property.
And, you're ok with the government mandating costly and unnecessary and unrelated medical procedures as long as it doesn't physically hurt the
NO! In my previous post I stated: "I am not against the states or local communities requiring a person to become completely educated on the procedure
before deciding on such an important procedure."
I would love to retract this statement if I could, as I see how hypocritical it was.
I will have to do some more research on the bill, but I will concede for now that if RP supports it...it would be hypocritical for him as well.
However, I do believe that hospitals have the right to require a patient to go through any pre-surgical requirements they deem necessarily. If it is
done for intimidation purposes, I do not agree with.
Were you "not allowed" by the government?
Nope, it was the hospital's call. I hope I clarified my position a bit better in the above comments.
It should follow that it doesn't matter if what's going on inside your PERSON is legal or not, the government does NOT have a right to enter into your
PERSON because of the 4th amendment privacy guarantee. He discounts the 4th Amendment.
Like I said before, this is where it gets tricky.
You do have the right to do what you please in your own home, but since our children have rights as individuals as well, we are not allowed to force
feed them crack rocks everyday, or anything else detrimental to their well being.
If a child in the womb is defined as a "person" in a particular state, they are granted the same rights as any other person...making abortion illegal.
On the other side, if a state takes an opposing view, abortion would be legal.
It all hinges on whether or not an unborn child is defined as a "person" or not. Each state would be able to make up their laws based on the will of
the people in each state...not ordered by the masters in DC.
As Ron Paul says, Abortion is a moral issue, not a legal one.
It is a moral issue. Some people find abortion immoral because they consider a child to be a living person and that the child has rights. Others
believe the opposite. I understand that. Is it something that we find socially acceptable and should legislate its legality? Or do we allow the people
of America to make their decisions locally, without intervention from the federal government?
Thanks for the discussion!
I hope you never take the word "you" personaly. I am using it in a broader sense of the term and never mean any
disrespect or anything personal. Just wanted to make sure you knew that.
edit on 27-1-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason