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.
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.
Paul is straight constitution, never swaying on that
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.
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;
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)
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.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by hawkiye
you are reading things into this that simply aren't there ...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.
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.
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;
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.
agreed but this is about a legislative decision with the potential to kill both mother and child, as this proposal could unnecessarily inflict
also agreed, however, how does one reflect a higher regard for the human life when legislation prevents vital medical care ??
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...
Originally posted by hawkiye
No his bill specifically removes federal control on the matter in any way shape or form.
(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.
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.
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.
no one is disputing this but how is it relevant to the topic ?
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.
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 ?
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.
me neither.
I've never agreed with taking action against an American citizen for something they did in another country.
one which we share.
That's just my opinion though.
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 ??
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.
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.
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.
Legislation cannot grant rights