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 and the states-rights-sidestep

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Not if the act of abortion is sanctioned by the state.
That would be like the fed going after states for executing prisoners.
because the prisoners rights were violated.




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Wiz4769
 

wow, troll much ?

Paul is straight constitution, never swaying on that
except for this recurring piece of horrendous legislation. it (Sanctity proposal) has been beat to death for nearly 20 yrs, one would think he's gnawed at this bone long enough, i know i do.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by rival
 






He did say that he thought that the states should have jurisdiction on this issue. But then he goes
and introduces a bill in Congress [H.R. 1096] that asks for federal control on this issue.


No his bill specifically removes federal control on the matter in any way shape or form. People should learn to read. The OP even quotes the language of the bill that removes all federal control and still won't admit it. And of course all the antis jump on the bandwagon repeating the non-sense the OP keeps repeating.



Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth;



edit on 3-5-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Over 100 posts and not a single valid counter argument.

If Rp is elected, he WILL push to make abortion illegal. Be aware.
edit on 2-5-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


I've read several.
You choose to not to acknowledge them.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

please avoid such a jaded response as many women suffer the same fate these days.

while we agree on the premise of your jaded response, please answer this ... (previously asked of others)
what happens when the State chooses (perhaps at the behest of the father) to prosecute the mother for obtaining an illegal procedure elsewhere ??

since the Feds can arrest someone in America for engaging in activities elsewhere (another country) that are illegal here, how is this any different ??

doesn't matter if we're discussing imports and exports, drugs, hacking or pedophelia, it's really all the same.
when you can be prosecuted here for engaging in activities outside this country, what makes anyone think mothers would be exempt from state prosecutions ??

and just so you know where i stand on the above subject, i am against the current CS system and the manner in which it is employed. if anything needs revision, it does.

edit to add: let's take it one generation further, shall we ??
grandparents have rights too. what if the grands decide to prosecute the mother for their loss ??
this proposal doesn't even touch on the rights of others and imho that is far too vague to be effective.


I don't think the response was jaded in the least. There are far more men that are thrown in what amounts to a debt prison for refusing to pay for a child than women are. That's not to say that action shouldn't be taken against dead beat dads, but women need to be held to same standard when they decide to run off and do whatever they want. Women are also far more likely to be awarded custody of a child regardless of the status of the father. In a system where we demand equality, the men in these situations always seem to end up with the short stick. When is the last time you heard about the single father working 3 jobs to support his children? Doesn't make the nightly news much. Regardless.

I've never agreed with taking action against an American citizen for something they did in another country. It's called the law of the land for a reason. And while I wouldn't agree with the action taken, the Government or the state has no authority to enforce laws on foreign soil. It's an over reach of authority and something should be done about it regardless of the law broken. Once you step out of this country American law should no longer apply to you. That also means that now you're on your own whenever you end up in some Italian prison for breaking their law. That's just my opinion though.

In regards to grand parents were talking about murder. And as I said when you stop a heart from beating there really is nothing else to call it but murder. Call it an abortion, birth control, friendly intervention, whatever. It's still murder. It doesn't really matter who prosecutes who.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by hawkiye
 

you are reading things into this that simply aren't there ...

The bill removes jurisdiction from The federal courts including the Supreme court therefore no doctor in a state where it is legal would be open to federal prosecution since the feds have no jurisdiction.
that is not what it says at all. the restriction involves challenging enacted State laws to a higher court, not Fed intervention regarding the protections provided all citizens within our Constitution. perhaps you are misunderstanding that our rights are not decided or provided by any court, they are inherrent and recognized, whereas, a fetus is not, it cannot exercise any of the rights supposedly bestowed upon it at conception. the entire argument is preposterous.


I am not reading anything into it you guys are I have now quoted several times the exact language of the bill that specifically removes any federal jurisdiction on the matter period. Legislation cannot grant rights your smart enough to understand that so how come you deny the plain llngauage of the bill removing any and all federal jurisdiction?


Amends the federal judicial code to REMOVE SUPREME COURT AND DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth;



edit on 3-5-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Over 100 posts and not a single valid counter argument.

If Rp is elected, he WILL push to make abortion illegal. Be aware.
edit on 2-5-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


I've read several.
You choose to not to acknowledge them.

hello grey580, i'm curious, which arguments in favor of the legislation do you find valid ?
especially considering in our last relay, you insisted that 6 dollars can be divided 6 ways and somehow generate 9 dollars per person.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   

agreed but this is about a legislative decision with the potential to kill both mother and child, as this proposal could unnecessarily inflict


And those parts of the proposal need to be struck down. The Government has no right to demand that someone risks their own life.


also agreed, however, how does one reflect a higher regard for the human life when legislation prevents vital medical care ??


Which vital medical care is being prevented aside from the actual abortion?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Ron Paul has introduced, at the federal level, the "Sanctity of Life Act"[H.R. 1096]. This act, which he would push into place if president...


You are making a bold assumption to say that he would push this as the president. Maybe he would, maybe he would not. In any case the Supreme Court would still have the jurisdiction to say whether such legislation is constitutional or not. The justices may see it as a bad idea to deprive a woman of rights in order to grant rights to a zygote. IF the Supreme Court upheld that it is constitutional legislation, then you would be correct that the states' position on abortion would become irrelevant. However there are a lot of ifs in that scenario, and it would take quite a bit of time to complete that process.

I am really not concerned with this because -- just as someone else said earlier in the thread -- Ron Paul is entitled to his opinion on the abortion issue, and considering that he has delivered so many babies and holds conservative values, it is no surprise that he is pro-life. I am skeptical whether Ron Paul, as president, would take such a step when he preaches against the nanny government, but you did bring up at least something to consider with his introduction of the Sanctity of Life Act.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 



Originally posted by hawkiye
No his bill specifically removes federal control on the matter in any way shape or form.


Not true. It removes federal JURISDICTION. It lays the groundwork for any state to make abortion illegal and disallows any recourse to appeal to the higher courts.

The federal CONTROL part is that at a federal level, legal personhood starts at conception.



(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.


In other words, legal personhood starts at conception federally.
States can protect that legal personhood.

When did states rights become more important than individual rights?

And if you think giving my neighbor the choice as to whether or not I should have an abortion is doing me a favor, don't do me any favors!

I know Ron Paul is never going to be president and this Sanctity of Life Act is never going to pass, but Ron Paul trying to pass himself off as a supporter of rights is a JOKE. He's a GOP member who wants to limit women's rights to their own body.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
hello grey580, i'm curious, which arguments in favor of the legislation do you find valid ?
especially considering in our last relay, you insisted that 6 dollars can be divided 6 ways and somehow generate 9 dollars per person.


I don't like the legislation. But I don't think it's a big deal.
And when in the world did I insist that 6 dollars could be divided 6 ways?
When did I say that?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I never thought I'd see the day when people would actively defend the murder of innocent children in the name of a sexy bikini line.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 

i could be wrong here but i think you are glossing over the highlighted phrase

The 10th amendment is the basis of Ron Paul's argument. The 10th amendment states "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."

a life-saving and occasionally necessary medical procedure should never be "at risk" of being outlawed in any State.
that would be UnConstitutional, even under the 10th.




I agree, but I think that abortion is being discussed here in general terms, because the vast majority of abortions are elective. An abortion is rarely ever needed in order to save a woman's life, but in the event that it is then I support it, although that is a choice between the mother and father of the unborn child. I have three children, all very young, and each time before my wife gave birth we were asked what our wishes were in the event that a choice had to be made between her and the baby.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I think the OP Captianknotsy has made his/her point. Your mind is made up - where a candidate stands on abortion is a make or break category to get your vote and you will not be able to support Ron Paul because of it. That is your belief and your decision to make. I don't understand why you have to have 100 posts in this thread arguing about it. Are you trying to convince yourself? Or do you think your opinion will somehow affect what other's believe?

There are many of us who either agree with RP that abortion should not be a Federal level decision or the abortion issue does not rank high enough to be a make or break category on voting. I personally have never found a candidate that 100% agrees with me on all my beliefs so there is always a little game of good vs bad when determining whether to support someone.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Jagermeister
 


I don't think the response was jaded in the least. There are far more men that are thrown in what amounts to a debt prison for refusing to pay for a child than women are.
no one is disputing this but how is it relevant to the topic ?


In a system where we demand equality, the men in these situations always seem to end up with the short stick. When is the last time you heard about the single father working 3 jobs to support his children? Doesn't make the nightly news much. Regardless.
i personally know several who are working 2 jobs to support their children minus mothers (does that count?) but yes, they do usually end up with the short end of the stick, so what exactly are you saying here with regard to the proposed legislation ?
i don't quite follow where you're going with this.


I've never agreed with taking action against an American citizen for something they did in another country.
me neither.


That's just my opinion though.
one which we share.


In regards to grand parents were talking about murder. And as I said when you stop a heart from beating there really is nothing else to call it but murder. Call it an abortion, birth control, friendly intervention, whatever. It's still murder. It doesn't really matter who prosecutes who.
honestly, i take offense to your inability or unwillingness to see both sides of the coin. your statement leads me to believe that i should be considered a "murderer" and prosecuted as well as suffer as a rape victim, is this your stance for real ??

(please note that i'm asking out of curiousity, not seeking an argument. i'm well aware that in some cultures, i would be punished regardless. i happen to disagree with such a belief system)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 

i could be wrong here but i think you are glossing over the highlighted phrase

The 10th amendment is the basis of Ron Paul's argument. The 10th amendment states "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."

a life-saving and occasionally necessary medical procedure should never be "at risk" of being outlawed in any State.
that would be UnConstitutional, even under the 10th.




I agree, but I think that abortion is being discussed here in general terms, because the vast majority of abortions are elective. An abortion is rarely ever needed in order to save a woman's life, but in the event that it is then I support it, although that is a choice between the mother and father of the unborn child. I have three children, all very young, and each time before my wife gave birth we were asked what our wishes were in the event that a choice had to be made between her and the baby.


Statistics show 1% of abortions are due to rape and 6% are due to health complications. Sad since that's always the first reason pro-abortion people spout out in support of their belief. The remaining 93% are simply because the baby is unwanted or inconvenient. That's not something I can or will support.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So this is like the states that have legalized medical marijuna can still have the feds raid and arrest the state registered distributers? If that's your premise then i can easily see that happening with abortion.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I think the OP Captianknotsy has made his/her point. Your mind is made up - where a candidate stands on abortion is a make or break category to get your vote and you will not be able to support Ron Paul because of it. That is your belief and your decision to make. I don't understand why you have to have 100 posts in this thread arguing about it. Are you trying to convince yourself? Or do you think your opinion will somehow affect what other's believe?

There are many of us who either agree with RP that abortion should not be a Federal level decision or the abortion issue does not rank high enough to be a make or break category on voting. I personally have never found a candidate that 100% agrees with me on all my beliefs so there is always a little game of good vs bad when determining whether to support someone.


This is insanity. Let's have 4 more years of wide open borders, endless war and high unemployment because some people don't agree that murder should be illegal.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Legislation cannot grant rights

exactly, not to the person, not to the state and certainly not to a fetus who is incapable of asserting said rights.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
The OP person is a one issue voter, Ron Paul will lose those types, because they fail to see the bigger picture.
However he will gain other one issue voters for the exact same reason, it's a trade off.

But Ron Paul is right, and until you & I have delivered 4000 babies our opinions don't mean squat compared to the good doctors.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join