Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul and the states-rights-sidestep

page: 11
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Jagermeister
 


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

exactly, however, the entirety of this proposal demands just that.
IF a woman requires a life-saving abortion but cannot legally obtain it in her state of residence, the law has intentionally killed 2 persons.
how is this exemplary of a positive for humanity or the human condition ?


Which vital medical care is being prevented aside from the actual abortion?
there is no "aside from", the abortion, in some cases, is the emergent, vital care necessary.




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Jagermeister
 


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

exactly, however, the entirety of this proposal demands just that.
IF a woman requires a life-saving abortion but cannot legally obtain it in her state of residence, the law has intentionally killed 2 persons.
how is this exemplary of a positive for humanity or the human condition ?


It's not and the proposal won't pass the way it is. And it shouldn't. If he seriously wants to do this it needs to be done the right way or not at all. You can't force people to risk their life.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.


Why do you guys keep saying its not true and denying the specific language that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt it is true. Then you agree that it removes federal jurisdiction. Yes you finally got it right it gives all jurisdiction to the states which is what Ron Paul has always advocated so the OP is wrong in saying Ron Paul is doing something different then he says.

Also I do not agree with the legislation myself however states rights is a step in the right direction. I don't believe your neighbors have a right to decide most things most people think they do. I bet you think you have a right to decide if I should pay taxes though or pay for your kids schooling or if I should wear a seat belt or buy insurance etc etc. Ron Paul is simply putting Abortion in the same category as all the other things most people like you believe they have a right to tell others what to do through government force by some supposed majority called democracy. But when it is something you have a personal stake in you suddenly want your personal freedom... But that is what you get when you live in a society that goes by mob rules... How ironic...

My personal belief is that as long as I am not harming anyone I should be able to do as I please and it's no one elses business. I think abortion is wrong as a means of birth control except in cases of rape and incest or the life of the mother in danger however I would not advocate any government intervention period it is a personal decision.


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 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Well here's the way I see it, we're dealing with 2 separate issues... establishing when a person becomes a person and giving rights to that person is a decision that should be made without even considering the legalities of abortion.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jagermeister

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.


When you take the most precious and sacred bond and the strongest bond in all of humanity, that of a mother and her child, and convince the women that it is meaningless and is good to murder this life and this bond, then you have erased all that is human from humanity itself. The rest is a simple matter, because those who support your policies have no essence of humanity left inside of them.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


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.
actually, we are trying to NOT discuss abortion in general terms. this is about a specific piece of legislation with specific ramifications if accepted and passed.

i agree the majority are elective, perhaps that is where the change needs to occur ?
proof of medical necessity is required for other procedures, why not this one ?

in my personal case, it was not the result of heath jeopardy rather the result of a crime (against a minor) ... should i have been refused this particular medical procedure simply because of my location ??

i do not condone abortion but i see no advancement in creating more random legal standards thoughout the land.
(if i were sure that all the states would vote to legalize this vital procedure within their borders, then i could support similar legislation - this one still has other issues - however, since that is not likely to happen, someone, somewhere will suffer unnecessarily and i cannot support that)


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.
congrats and it's good to hear that at least the med professionals are inquiring, in my prego days, such a conversation never occurred unless the need arose.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I agree with Ron Paul that abortion should not be a Federal issue.
The Federal Government has no business being in a womans uterus.

I don't agree that the Supreme court should not be involved if it has to review a case.

Personally I think this is a woman's rights issue.
And that shouldn't be an issue.


But again, you're missing the point. The problem isnt making it a state issue. the problem is his making it a state issue WHILE passing law that gives a fetus federally protected right as a person. Meaning the doctor, once he performs a LEGAL abortion, can be charged with infringing upon the rights of that fetus.
i'm not sure when he tried to get this through, but i do agree with you that it would not be good if it happened at a federal level. this is the first time i have heard about this. i will say i highly doubt he would push that through seeing as how he is very much for states rights. good thread. i am a Ron Paul supporter, and there is nothing wrong with fair questions.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jameela

Originally posted by Jagermeister

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.


When you take the most precious and sacred bond and the strongest bond in all of humanity, that of a mother and her child, and convince the women that it is meaningless and is good to murder this life and this bond, then you have erased all that is human from humanity itself. The rest is a simple matter, because those who support your policies have no essence of humanity left inside of them.



What about rape? Where is the supposed bond when one is brutally raped? Should a woman be forced to carry the offspring of her rapist to term? How about if the mothers life is in danger? Does not the mother have the choice to choose to live in that case?

I don't know if you are but most anti-abortion advocates are Christian and they are the ones saying life begins at conception ironically their scriptures teach that life does not begin till the first breath...



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Jagermeister
 


It's not and the proposal won't pass the way it is. And it shouldn't. If he seriously wants to do this it needs to be done the right way or not at all. You can't force people to risk their life.
i agree with your entire statement which is also why i approached this topic at all. i am no fan of abortion but i certainly see the value of its use when appropriate and at the sole discretion of the consumer and their doctor.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I am not Christian. And I believe the soul enters the body long before the first breath.

As far as rape, is not the child still as much as part of the mother as a child conceived in love? How many women have abortions because they were raped and how many women in this country have abortions because they "can't be bothered" with the life they themselves created? People bring up rape, but very few children are conceived in rape scenarios.

And many people in this world want children because they cannot conceive am I not correct?
edit on 3-5-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 

Tell me I'm wrong and Ron Paul isn't the exact type of politician he claims to be against.

Tell me Ron Paul isn't the exact type of politician he claims to be against.

OK - you're wrong, and Ron Paul isn't the exact type of politician he claims to be against. He is quite obviously fairly misunderstood due to people not thinking things entirely through, however.

Are you telling me that convicted criminals, those involved in cases of manslaughter/justifiable homicide/etc., and other similar such cases aren't also likewise entitled to such "federally protected rights" as you mention?

And yet...mysteriously...the states themselves handle cases of murder and otherwise allow or prohibit the preliminary termination of life, or do so themselves. Has anyone, even including the federal government, ever made a habit of trying to prosecute the states for killing people directly or allowing/excusing the killing of acknowledged people in certain circumstances?

Of course not. Abortion would be handled/allowed/prohibited exactly like these other endings of life are - at the states' discretion, with no further risk of prosecution under state law than any of the rest.

Non-issue. States handle the early termination of life, without prosecution, fairly frequently.
edit on 5/3/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by benrl
And is it wrong to leave this issue to the state level?

thats all im asking, cause that seems to be the thing people keep missing with Ron Paul.

Even if hes the most Adherent prolifer, he wont step in and let the Feds force it on the states.

What ever the issue is, thats what it comes down to.

Is it okay for states to decide this on their own...


You missed the entire point of the thread. It isnt wrong to take it to the state level. It is VERY wrong to make it a state issue while pushing federal law that would essentially make it illegal.


i find that if abortion is a STATE mandated law, instead of a federal law, creates the problem of enforcement. if, a woman concieves in a no-abortion state, but, has an abortion in a yes-abortion state, how does the different state laws come into play?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 

hawkiye, thanks for including your personal opinion.

My personal belief is that as long as I am not harming anyone I should be able to do as I please and it's no one elses business. I think abortion is wrong as a means of birth control except in cases of rape and incest or the life of the mother in danger however I would not advocate any government intervention period it is a personal decision.
since we agree on everything you say up to the bold, here is where we butt heads, why would you say it's OK and a step in the right direction for the State to decide when you clearly disagree ????
(see bold for your own disagreement with such a decision becoming the right of the State)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jameela

Originally posted by Jagermeister

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.


When you take the most precious and sacred bond and the strongest bond in all of humanity, that of a mother and her child, and convince the women that it is meaningless and is good to murder this life and this bond, then you have erased all that is human from humanity itself. The rest is a simple matter, because those who support your policies have no essence of humanity left inside of them.



it doesn't matter what you think, it matters what the mother thinks. you make a woman out to be some kind of breeding animal, incapable of making decisions regarding her own body.
abortion was already happening BEFORE roe vs. wade, look at the reasons why it was passed in the first place



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jameela

Originally posted by Jagermeister

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.


When you take the most precious and sacred bond and the strongest bond in all of humanity, that of a mother and her child, and convince the women that it is meaningless and is good to murder this life and this bond, then you have erased all that is human from humanity itself. The rest is a simple matter, because those who support your policies have no essence of humanity left inside of them.

well Jameela, one could easily agree or disagree with your statement.
i disagree. for those who do not experience such a bond, yours is a futile argument.


then you have erased all that is human from humanity itself.
you appear to have a very narrow view of what humanity is or its direct participation in the animal kingdom.


The rest is a simple matter
it is never a simple matter and your attempt to demoralize those who have endured this struggle is painfully obvious.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Regardless of your views of their rightness or wrongness... these things must be acknowledge by those who are trying to argue that "personhood" immediately grants federal authority over any act that results in the death of a person.

1) Right To Die is under the jurisdiction of states. This is assisted suicide by a medical doctor via a medical procedure (even in the case where the patient can't consent). Currently most states BAN the right of a person the authority over their own bodies to determine when they wish to die. Some allow assisted suicide where the person administers the medication themselves that the doctor provides (similar to chemical abortion).

It is up to the state to determine... including direct assistance by the doctor.

2) The definitions, boundaries, and punishments for murder are defined by the states UNLESS the act crosses state boundaries, is a unprosecuted at the state level hate crime, happens on federal property, etc. This means states have the authority to define what is a "justifiable" death and what is not. What those penalties will be, or not. Serial Killers fall under state jurisdiction for murder laws unless they enter into federal areas of domain.

These are very clear cases where a "legally defined person" may have their life terminated with the states defining what is appropriate for the state or not.

This is already how it works. Voluntary Abortion where there are no threats to the mother or baby's health, no rape or initial lack of consent in the act, is a special case. Why?

It can be debated whether states SHOULD have the said authority above the Federal government or not... but you can NOT make the argument that by defining someone as a "person" automatically moves the protection of all said lives into federal authority.

If you are going to make the argument that a "person" who has their life ended via a medical procedure even with the consent of the parties is illegal under federal law... then how do you address the state authority over assisted suicide decided by the doctor and the patient or the legal guardian of the patient (which the mother is)?

States already have different boundaries for what conditions a person's life may be terminated legally and what they will not. If I want to have an assisted suicide, I have to move to a different state.

Now yes, you can argue that it shouldn't be this way... but you can not make the argument that "personhood" automatically grants immediate federal jurisdiction over the conditions the ending of that "personhood" is considered a crime.

There is already clearly established precedence for states determining this in most cases of our lives. However for some reason there isn't as much outrage over the lack of right in some states to determine the conditions of your own death despite it being virtually the same issue.

Namaste.
edit on 2012/5/3 by ErgoTheConfusion because: Wording cleanup.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
lol at this thread.
Is 'hawkiye' the only other person who gets this bill?

All this bill does is remove any legal jurisdiction the federal government has in matters regarding abortion. It protects States that introduce anti abortion laws. It also outlaws any federal money, facilities or employee from funding or facilitating in abortions.



Supreme Court shall not have
20 jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or oth-
21 erwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule,
22 regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of
23 any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any
24 statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice



so unless the state has a statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part there of, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice then this bill has no bearing on that state.

This bill gives the Federal Government no authority to prosecute anyone for performing or undertaking an abortion in states that allow abortion and there is also no stipulation to the type of anti abortion laws a state can pass so a state could still allow abortions due to health and defect, or rape but restrict unwanted pregnancy abortions. The bill also only apply's to the health of the 'human life' in the womb not the mother so it will have no bearing on abortions that are required to save a mother from serious injury or death.

Do you guys seriously think a doctor is going to tell a pregnant patient who is in serious risk of death due to the pregnancy that she must die because we cannot abort your 10 week since conceived baby . Even if the pregnancy is almost full term or even during delivery an honest, moral and humane doctor would make the right decision based on the medical facts on whether to abort the pregnancy or not. Even Dr Paul IMHO.

P.S. I am pro choice and I like this bill and even though i think its a parents choice I believe life begins at conceptio,. there is LIFE and DEATH that is it. If you are a mother that made the choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and the term 'FETUS' helps you sleep better at night then so be it but maybe just maybe if with a Federal Government stating "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception" then some mothers will make a different choice and give that unborn child a chance.
edit on 3-5-2012 by oddnutz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Let me just say this:

Regardless of the law, which will never suit everyone because there will always be sides and excuses -

Abortion has consequences. Karma will pay you for the life you take. It isn't that your life will be taken (Karma is not about revenge, it is stern love and teaching), but you may very well find your life in a significant downturn until you learn the lesson that life is sacred and not yours to take.

I experienced it first-hand, and will never do it again.

We aborted our first because (at the time) I felt like I wasn't mature enough, rich enough, whatever. Basically I wasn't ready to change. It was this experience that began my awakening. I learned my lesson, and realized what I had done was cheat the creator a chance to show me the joys of being a parent. My second one, thanks to lessons learned prior, is alive and well, and a perfect little boy.


Consider rape. What grows inside as a result is not to blame for it. Is is a really awful situation but there is a life-soul there with you that is innocent to all of that from the beginning, ready to experience life and it has chosen you. Why abort that?



You know what, when people realize there is a creator, and that they aren't all alone in this world (and that we are all connected and really the same as one), the perspective on what a life is and what it means to take one changes. Consider that as you ponder the issue put forth here. Consider that Ron Paul may have come to the same conclusion and that is why he is Pro-life. I respect that. I also respect that he doesn't want Federal Government to be the decision maker. Like many things, it isn't the Fed's place.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


States handle the early termination of life, without prosecution, fairly frequently.

not without due process.
so do tell, how does a fetus assert said rights or engage in due process ??
(ie, the legal right of personhood)
once a fetus is granted said rights, abortion is no longer a protected right, rather it becomes a legislated one.
and according to this proposal, one without recourse beyond the state borders.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion
 


It is up to the state to determine... including direct assistance by the doctor

this statement is far too vague and generalized to be completely true.
if i do not want to be sustained, i simply submit a directive of my wishes and no such determination by the State is EVER made. misleading at best.

your #2 fails to address the fact that once State determined, the abortion act itself could be considered a "hate crime" and a federal offense, especially if the mother crossed a state border or 2 to receive it.


These are very clear cases where a "legally defined person" may have their life terminated with the states defining what is appropriate for the state or not.

only and i repeat, ONLY when the individual hasn't already directed otherwise.
unless you are now referring to convicted criminals and i'd have to remind you again of due process
in relation to this topic, the decision of the individual outweighs the desire of the State.


but you can NOT make the argument that by defining someone as a "person" automatically moves the protection of all said lives into federal authority

sure can, by virtue of the 14th Amendment (didn't we cover this already? - if not, then why do we have agencies like ICE, DHS, BS, TSA, CYS, FPS, FPO or any other similar bullshizzle?

abortion and assisted suicide aren't even in the same ballpark let alone comparable in this discussion.
just because laws exist regulating assisted suicide doesn't make it a similar argument.

suicide = i forfeit my life
abortion = claims made that it is taking the life of another.
these two things are NOT the same no matter how many times ppl try to make it so.

no legislation is needed to determine when life begins.
that is also a decision for the individual.

no legislation is needed to make it more difficult to receive this medical procedure when applicable.
and no such legislation can be effectively enforced, so why waste the time, effort and money ??






top topics



 
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join