Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul and the states-rights-sidestep

page: 16
12
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by Honor93
 





This is actually only a women's right issue, not a universal issue... Unless males could some how get pregnant, but this isn't the movie Junior either....


That is what I stated on the first page...I don't think anyone got the metaphor...Abortion only affects females, therefore it is a Women's Rights issue...Males can't judge on what the female does...For one males can't get pregnant hence the Junior metaphor up above...This technically shouldn't have been a big deal, but some how it exploded and became more popular then it should have...
edit on 4-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)

KonquestAbySS --> please use the Reply button of the poster you are quoting.
that quote isn't anything i've ever said.

for the record, i disagree with the content of that quote.

it takes two to make a baby, it should take two to decide its fate.
i realize that's not the most practical outlook but it is how it should be.

men are not supposed to judge one another (men or women) so we agree here totally.
while men do not carry the child, they certainly do "get pregnant", can't happen without 'em.
i also agree that the physical complications of being pregnant should be decided by a couple but again, that's not always possible.
however, i firmly believe it's no business of any government official, not Fed or State.




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by Honor93
 





This is actually only a women's right issue, not a universal issue... Unless males could some how get pregnant, but this isn't the movie Junior either....


That is what I stated on the first page...I don't think anyone got the metaphor...Abortion only affects females, therefore it is a Women's Rights issue...Males can't judge on what the female does...For one males can't get pregnant hence the Junior metaphor up above...This technically shouldn't have been a big deal, but some how it exploded and became more popular then it should have...
edit on 4-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)


"Murder technically shouldn't have been a big deal, but some how it exploded and became more popular then it should have."

See what I did there? You change the word "abortion" to "murder" and it just doesn't sound right any more does it? So now murder is a woman's right? I do love the mentality here though. As if women just magically place children inside them on their own. What do they wake up one day and tap their heels together and make a baby?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jagermeister

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by Honor93
 





This is actually only a women's right issue, not a universal issue... Unless males could some how get pregnant, but this isn't the movie Junior either....


That is what I stated on the first page...I don't think anyone got the metaphor...Abortion only affects females, therefore it is a Women's Rights issue...Males can't judge on what the female does...For one males can't get pregnant hence the Junior metaphor up above...This technically shouldn't have been a big deal, but some how it exploded and became more popular then it should have...
edit on 4-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)


"Murder technically shouldn't have been a big deal, but some how it exploded and became more popular then it should have."

See what I did there? You change the word "abortion" to "murder" and it just doesn't sound right any more does it? So now murder is a woman's right? I do love the mentality here though. As if women just magically place children inside them on their own. What do they wake up one day and tap their heels together and make a baby?

just making sure you realize this isn't my quote (Honor93) or response ... it is an error of the original poster.

odd that you'd choose murder as a comparative. it is the easist crime to commit and remain uncharged and unsolved.
there are more unsolved murders than any other crime on the books.
in essence, i'd presume it isn't all that big of a deal either.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas
on the contrary, current abortions seldom occur prior to the stage referenced as fetus.

I beg to differ as at least 25% of women in the U.S. have used the "abortion pill" which must be taken within the first two weeks after conception according to research done in 2009. I suspect that those numbers have increased since then, as it is a more "convenient" and less costly approach to terminating a pregnancy.
Abortion pill used in 1 in 4 U.S. terminations


Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas
if your argument is built on vocabulary nuances, you should step away from the keyboard.

"Vocabulary nuances" in such instances matter. If such a bill does become law, every word will be scrutinized as to allow those fore or against the subject, a means of gaining a strong position.


Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas
this audience isn't comprised of only biologists, scientists or adults for that matter. most everyone over the age of 13 relates to the word "fetus" when referring to the result of conception.

I never implied that the audience of this thread or this forum for that matter, was made up of any particular group of people. However, if one is to intelligently argue his case, he should make sure that he understand the subject matter before engaging in a debate/discussion. Else, he risks appearing ignorant and rendering his argument mute. I made an admission that I was not a biologist but, with a bit of understanding, I can differentiate between what some are referring to as a zygote and a fetus. There are very clear definitions for both.
Another part of having an intelligent discussion is to make sure you never make assumptions. You cannot know for a fact what most of any particular age group would relate to regardless of the subject. The best that you can offer is your own unique perspective perhaps, as one who is "over the age of 13..."


Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas
IF the point of conception initiates life (as per the bill) and bestows Constitutionally protected rights at that moment in time, why or how would that change during the fetus stage ?

It appears that your point here is a little muddled as conception does not bestow rights...though, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that as per the bill, rights are implicitly granted at the moment of conception. The bill also implies inclusively, that from conception forward in time, the being is know as a human. Since a fetus comes chronologically after the point of conception, there would be no change in its status.


Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas
big deal the Feds supposedly can't prosecute, the State boys can and would.

It is a big deal that the federal government cannot prosecute anyone for matters pertaining to abortion. The federal government was never given the power to do so in the first place. That is what I understand when reading the tenth amendment of the constitution.


Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas
do you have any substantial contributions or more of the same ?

I have plenty more to contribute here and elsewhere. It is a pity to see such a pathetic attempt to belittle me. You don't even know me...

ESV
edit on 4/5/2012 by ExScientiaVeritas because: fixed a broken quote box.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Again, I dont know how many times I can say this, but it is pure FALLACY to claim that redefining embryo, zygots and fetus as a person does not grant them rights.

It is you friend, positing a fallacious argument. Laws/bills are specifically written to include references where appropriate, definitions where necessary, and language that precisely conveys the intent of the legislation.
I agree that rights given to people in this country are just that, given to people and if this bill defines life and therefore the existence of a person after conception then I believe they too have those rights. It is just that the bill does not explicitly imply it.

ESV



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Jagermeister
 





"Murder technically shouldn't have been a big deal, but some how it exploded and became more popular then it should have." See what I did there? You change the word "abortion" to "murder" and it just doesn't sound right any more does it? So now murder is a woman's right? I do love the mentality here though. As if women just magically place children inside them on their own. What do they wake up one day and tap their heels together and make a baby?


It is a women's choice because she has to live with it....And no it isn't murder if she is making the abortion decision for the right reasons...There are more right reasons to having abortions, then there are wrong reasons which could fall under the category of murder... Really doesn't matter women should have the final say....
edit on 4-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   

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...


Let's say that 49 states make it illegal for a thirty year old man to marry a nine year old girl. But, just ONE states make it legal. That one state renders the laws of all the other states useless, because those that wish to marry a nine year old girl will simply go to the state where it's legal.

In Massachusetts it's illegal to purchase fireworks for the 4th of July. In the bordering state of New Hampshire it's not illegal. So, Massachusetts residents slip over the border to buy. What good is the Massachusetts law?



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas
 

really ??? you're really that confused about all of this ? well ok, let's see if this helps any.


I suspect that those numbers have increased since then, as it is a more "convenient" and less costly approach to terminating a pregnancy.
while this may be true, your "suspicions" don't make it so.
considering the above and in 2009, usage @ 25% --> that'd still be seldom, but thanks for re-affirming the point.


If such a bill does become law, every word will be scrutinized as to allow those fore or against the subject
totally agree, so, let's take a look at just that, the words in the bill ...

www.govtrack.us...
(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.
emphasis mine
now, the other thing you seem to be overlooking here is the second bold phrase.
pay attention closely ... the STATE has authority to protect lives of unborn children {from the point of conception} ... blah, blah, blah
if a pregnant woman (even within 24hrs) leaves the state to commit a "crime" (obtain & consume the pill) then returns, she can and will be prosecuted for said crime.


IF one is to intelligently argue his case, he should make sure that he understand the subject matter before engaging in a debate/discussion
true and it would be strongly advised, if you're going to engage anyone on these boards, that you take your own advice before you type.

well, i'd guess the difference here IS in the English.
seeing as how there is NO definitive other than "conception",
i believe i'll call it --> PoC (Point of Conception)
~~ everything is soooo PC these days
~~

and since the term 'zygote' refers to single cell formed after conception has occurred, that particular word would be equally incorrect.

conception has been defined as --> the act of conceiving; the state of being conceived; fertilization.
in case any of those words are confusing, here's some baseline comparatives ...
'act of conceiving' = unprotected sexual intercourse
'state of conceiving' = unprotected orgasm/ejaculation
'fertilization' = unprotected sexual intercourse
get it yet ??

whereas the zygote is --> The cell formed by the union of a male sex cell (a sperm) and a female sex cell (an ovum).

now, the truth is ... by the time a zygote forms (or not), PoC has already occurred
doesn't matter if it was a milisecond or nanosecond or any other increment of time, conception does not equal a zygote. *** which is a secondary reason this bill is a complete sham ***

basically, this would allow any sexually active woman to be "in jeopardy" of violating the rights of a "potential" child/human each time she menstruates; as there is no current method to detect if a zygote is present and naturally passing. (however, this too could change)

on that same note, any act of unprotected sex becomes PoC, anyone think of that ??
{that includes rape and there is no exclusion for State prosecution of the victim that chooses abortion}


I can differentiate between what some are referring to as a zygote and a fetus
while i am glad that you can make this distinction, you seem to be falling short on the PoC point of the conversation.


You cannot know for a fact what most of any particular age group would relate to regardless of the subject
i beg your pardon, but for the number of yrs i've meandered round here, yes, i can.
and i assure you, my perspective is well beyond 13, but i often forget many are not.


if I understand you correctly, you are saying that as per the bill, rights are implicitly granted at the moment of conception.
ah soooo grasshopper, clearly, you haven't even bothered to read what we're discussing ??
thanks for poke, it's been fun.


That is what I understand when reading the tenth amendment of the constitution.
then, perhaps you should continue reading it and get back to us after you've absorbed the 14th.

for the record, in this discussion, the Feds arresting ppl isn't as much of a concern as the State's power to do so regarding "murder", is that any clearer ??
if you think "domestic violence" is bad now, just wait ... it can and will get worse. count on it.

next time, bring some facts into the conversation and please check your emotions at the door.
tis an important subject for many



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas
 

tis no wonder you are soooo horribly confused ...

I agree that rights given to people in this country are just that, given to people
when you figure out just how wrong that statement was/is, get back to us or spend some time comprehending ?your?/the US Constitution.

ya know, there's a funny thing about Roe v Wade that many people frequently overlook.
it provides that no state can prohibit abortions, well that's fair enough, but it doesn't say a word about any State requirement to perform them, ever think about that aspect ??

Mississippi and Alabama have and the point here is ... RvW is only a stumbling block if the State allows it to be.
Ron Paul should know this already so now i'm really wondering what is the "side-step" some think doesn't exist ??

here's a simple question that i'm wondering if you've even considered.
(even if you are anti-abortion)

we're sisters, you & i, and our home state doesn't provide abortions
(or allow them as the case may be)
i decide to have an abortion anyway and must travel to do so (you don't approve but that's neither here nor there). you agree to transport me (just a ride across the bridge) to the locations (dr & drug store) to get what i require.

now, the father-to-be (bare sex partner) with support of the State, choose to prosecute me for murder (or attempted depending on if i took the pill yet).

do you even realize that you become an accomplice and could potentially be charged as an accessory to a felony/murder ???
it would be a more serious charge than driving the getaway car in a heist of some sort.

in this day and age of surveillance, there would be NO denying it.
can't get the pill without a prescription so now you're on camera in at least 2 locations.

this is one wild web of deception for those who don't look close enough.
i highly suggest following Simba's best advice ever ... loooook hhaarrrrrrrddddeerrrrr

cheers


edit to add: hmmm, after thinking about this some more, could you imagine the black market that would spring up around such pharmaceuticals ?? and to think, the punishment of the dealers would be less than a woman crossing the state border in full view. wow, shoddy, shady and a bit scary if you ask me.
edit on 6-5-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jagermeister
See what I did there? You change the word "abortion" to "murder" and it just doesn't sound right any more does it?


No it doesn't, but we're not talking about murder now are we? We're talking about abortion. A fertilized egg is not a human being, it isn't considered one among all those in the scientific community. Where you define what is and is not a human being or a person is your deal and yours alone.

I also agree with Konquer that abortion only really concerns the women. While the man has a crucial part in getting that woman pregnant, it is the woman who bears the full responsibility and pain of pregnancy. The man is in no way physically affected by the pregnancy as nature had intended. Everything the woman eats, drinks, what she does, will affect the pregnancy, ultimately the decision is left to her whether you like it or not.
edit on 6-5-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





While the man has a crucial part in getting that woman pregnant, it is the woman who bears the full responsibility and pain of pregnancy. The man is in no way physically affected by the pregnancy as nature had intended. Everything the woman eats, drinks, what she does, will affect the pregnancy, ultimately the decision is left to her whether you like it or not.


Whatever she does can lead to miscarriages as well...Women have to change their whole lifestyle just to nurture the fetus so it can soon become a baby...That is why I believe women have it tough, Males can just get a women pregnant and move on with their business...No one can really see it from a women's perspective...Which this is why I said this issue about Ron Paul and abortion is the least of all of our concerns at the moment...



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 


I find myself constantly debating pro-lifers on the issue of 'fairness' when it comes to pregnancy. Their position is, it is unfair that the man has no say when it comes to matters concerning abortion and the woman in question. But nature isn't fair now is it? Nature has given the responsibility of pregnancy to the woman and the woman alone, this is just fact, the man has absolutely no further physical responsibility, as nature had intended. You cannot make a law in some pathetic attempt to make so that men can have a say, it just isn't possible, unless they invent some way where by men can take part of the responsibility, which would then be counter to nature.

Abortion is a reality, and quiet frankly if the woman is really motivated enough not to go forward with the pregnancy, whether it be for a reason of convenience, or a reason concerning a horrible crime that had been committed to her, she will find ways to stop it. The worst thing in this case would be to push women like that into back alleys, or to introduce womb police to investigate every daughter, woman on every street to make sure they go ahead with the pregnancy, at the expense of tax payer money, at the expense of woman's health, all for the sake of some moral and ethical belief of a minority.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





Nature has given the responsibility of pregnancy to the woman and the woman alone, this is just fact, the man has absolutely no further physical responsibility, as nature had intended. You cannot make a law in some pathetic attempt to make so that men can have a say, it just isn't possible, unless they invent some way where by men can take part of the responsibility, which would then be counter to nature.


Which is why I used the Junior metaphor back on the 1st page of this thread...I don't know how people missed that one...



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
sorry to hear about your experience with dad but thanks for sharing.
question: if you had to make the decision to end his suffering, apparently he did not have a directive on file ?? (DNR)

in a case where there is no directive, usually next of kin makes the decision, occasionally the State makes the decision once other avenues are exhausted.

again, this is a decision of the willing, living, breathing participants.
how does a fetus fit that description?
i see no comparison between the two.


Well if the law were to pass. The fetus would be given the same status as a living human being.
It would be the same in the eyes of the law.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by Jagermeister
 





"Murder technically shouldn't have been a big deal, but some how it exploded and became more popular then it should have." See what I did there? You change the word "abortion" to "murder" and it just doesn't sound right any more does it? So now murder is a woman's right? I do love the mentality here though. As if women just magically place children inside them on their own. What do they wake up one day and tap their heels together and make a baby?


It is a women's choice because she has to live with it....And no it isn't murder if she is making the abortion decision for the right reasons...There are more right reasons to having abortions, then there are wrong reasons which could fall under the category of murder... Really doesn't matter women should have the final say....
edit on 4-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)


Does the man have the final say when he doesn't want a child? Well yeah the woman has to go through 9 months of hell but the man gets put in a cage when he doesn't pay for an unwanted child. Does he not? If I don't pay child support are my rights not stolen from me? Do I get to opt out of prison because it's unhealthy for my body to be placed in a cage 15 hours a day? The man doesn't have a choice to live with it or not. You don't pay you go directly to prison.

Now onto murder. Anytime that you stop a human heart from beating it is murder. I don't care where the human may be. If there is a heart beat and another human stops that heart from beating it is murder. I don't care how you justify it it is murder. Women do not have the final say when it comes to life or death unless they are in danger themselves. Just like you can't walk up to some random person and shoot them, but if they break in your house and threaten your life you're justified in taking lethal action.

This comes down to common sense here nothing more. I'm really getting sick of the feminist garbage that demands equality yet want nothing but privlage. Women do not put in a child in their body on their own therefor they do not have the right to take it out on their own. K?



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Jagermeister
See what I did there? You change the word "abortion" to "murder" and it just doesn't sound right any more does it?


No it doesn't, but we're not talking about murder now are we? We're talking about abortion. A fertilized egg is not a human being, it isn't considered one among all those in the scientific community. Where you define what is and is not a human being or a person is your deal and yours alone.

I also agree with Konquer that abortion only really concerns the women. While the man has a crucial part in getting that woman pregnant, it is the woman who bears the full responsibility and pain of pregnancy. The man is in no way physically affected by the pregnancy as nature had intended. Everything the woman eats, drinks, what she does, will affect the pregnancy, ultimately the decision is left to her whether you like it or not.
edit on 6-5-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)


If there is a heart beat it is alive. I don't care what the scientfic community says. Dead people do not have a heart beat. Living people do. That is common sense. The second a fetus has a heart beat is where I draw the line because it is alive at that point. And as I've said when you stop a human heart from beating it is considered murder. Just because you call it abortion or whatever other lovely name you want to cal it doesn't mean it isn't murder.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Jagermeister
 





Now onto murder. Anytime that you stop a human heart from beating it is murder. I don't care where the human may be.


Then you should apply what you said to your everyday life. That when you take a life regardless of the circumstances it is murder pure and simple, even if it involves self defense...Calling it murder when a female has an abortion for the right reasons is absurd... Especially at the earlier stages.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Well if the law were to pass. The fetus would be given the same status as a living human being.
It would be the same in the eyes of the law.
while this is true (and a problem on so very many levels), status is not the same as an "ability to assert rights" ... all of the other examples could assert their rights and did, a fetus, a zygote, an unborn child cannot and no living person has the "right" to speak for the unborn.
(especially if the "unborn" has rights of their own - technically, how could any other person speak for said unborn person ??)
if a person is in a coma, do we "speak" for them ??
if a person is mute, do we "speak" for them ??
how 'bout a person with a wired jaw ??
this whole proposal is just too crazy to even consider.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jagermeister
If there is a heart beat it is alive.


So now you're setting your own personal standards here as to what is and what is not a human being. The vast majority of pro-lifers believe a human being is one right at conception. So if it doesn't have a hear, abortion is acceptable? So you're ok with abortion in the first 3 or so weeks of a pregnancy?

Have alittle think about your position.


I don't care what the scientfic community says.


That's fine. What you personally believe is a human being, is murder, is your deal. Just remember that your standards do not necessarily have to be shared with everybody else, and it isn't.
edit on 7-5-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



it is the woman who bears the full responsibility and pain of pregnancy.

it's funny you say that, but then once the child is born, it's all "give me my alimony NOW!"

18-21 days after conception, the "fertilized egg"/parasite/tissue blob has it's own heartbeat with a blood type separate from the mothers.

yeah, it definitely isn't human and doesn't deserve mention. substituting in nice clean words like "abortion" for murder and "fetus" for baby is just the first step.

conception is the only reasonable definition for the beginning of human life.
edit on 7-5-2012 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join