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.
Originally posted by babybunnies
Ron Paul's position on EVERYTHING is that unless it's directly mandated in the Constitution for the Federal Government to deal with, that it's the responsibility of individual states to make up their mind on every issue.
He's been preaching this for years, this should be no surprise that this is his position on abortion as well.
since Roe vs Wade is already established Federal law, what is your point here, exactly ?
this proposal removes an individuals ability to have their applicable case presented whether the court finds it worthy or not.
removing Constitutional pathways to resolution is a failed misdirection, try again.
Any law which is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void
hardly or i woundn't have asked you to explain this preposterous presumption.
over-simplification.
currently, the legal finality lies with the Supreme Court as directed in the Constitution and especially when the state errors in the application of its granted authority.
no, it is not "just like every other matter dealing iwth premature termination of life".
all of the other matters deal with living, breathing and previously born humans.
this, not so much.
i'm positive ScOTUS wouldn't hear such an argument as Roe vs Wade prevents it from ever appearing and SLA prohibits the possibility even though the need may very well arise.
this is an illusion. i defer to the bill, section 2, article 1, parts A&B.
you are welcome to your opinion, some of which i happen to agree.
Dr Paul is not the target of this conversation, this legislation is.
i too, favor Dr Paul over all other current candidates, however, on this issue, we are polar opposites and just because i favor some of his theories doesn't mean i'm going to lie down and roll over when something this disturbing comes down the pike.
now is the time to assess his positions, proposals, voting history, blah, blah, blah, not after the elections. please do not try to lead this into a Paul bashing thread, it is not.
it is what it is, submitted legislation which is being considered on the Hill, it is a relevant topic.
no offense, but the old adage ... ya gotta take the bad with the good ... is BS.
we don't 'gotta' and we should hold out for a higher standard, Paul is a representative, not a dictator.
and on that note, when Dr Paul decides to push for legislation that limits abortions based on medical necessity, he'll receive support from me and others of similar opinion.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Originally posted by grey580
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.
Not the same thing whatsoever.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by captaintyinknots
yes, hypocrisy is very easy to spot and defeat. hardly requires rhetoric at all.
i don't see any logical fallacy in my argument, though the one in your position is obvious, perhaps you were projecting.
human rights are guaranteed at the federal level. the founders never envisioned a world where a procedure to kill your child was legal, or one that considered an unborn child not human. therefore, i find it logical that a definition of what "human" means be included at the same level.
Originally posted by grey580
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Originally posted by grey580
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.
Not the same thing whatsoever.
The outcome is the same is it not?
Dead is dead. Or am I missing something?
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
Originally posted by ozwest
Why do Americans decide elections on issues like abortion, gay marriage, weapons of mass destruction? Don't you realize politicians use these issues to divide and conquer the electorate... Stop wasting your time on this subject. If a woman wants an abortion she will have it regardless of the law. Legal or not, it's going to happen sadly.
So, you are claiming to know what the founding fathers were thinking?
Originally posted by ozwest
reply to post by captaintyinknots
You are illustrating my point. Rightly or wrongly abortions will occur. No matter how emotionally you feel, those are the facts. You can't legislte human behaviour. Start with the war on drugs...