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.
And those parts of the proposal need to be struck down. The Government has no right to demand that someone risks their own life.
there is no "aside from", the abortion, in some cases, is the emergent, vital care necessary.
Which vital medical care is being prevented aside from the actual abortion?
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 ?
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.
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 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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ????
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.
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.
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.
you appear to have a very narrow view of what humanity is or its direct participation in the animal kingdom.
then you have erased all that is human from humanity itself.
it is never a simple matter and your attempt to demoralize those who have endured this struggle is painfully obvious.
The rest is a simple matter
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
States handle the early termination of life, without prosecution, fairly frequently.
It is up to the state to determine... including direct assistance by the doctor
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.
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