Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul and the states-rights-sidestep

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


First off no matter what side you argue for whether it be pro-life, or pro-choice it is win/win. So what is the big deal? Why hasn't anyone criticized Obama on this and he has been our president for almost 4 years now...No one dares to question Obama about it, how convenient it must be...Has Obama done anything about the abortion issue?




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


First off no matter what side you argue for whether it be pro-life, or pro-choice it is win/win. So what is the big deal? Why hasn't anyone criticized Obama on this and he has been our president for almost 4 years now...No one dares to question Obama about it, how convenient it must be...Has Obama done anything about the abortion issue?


How is it win/win? Its becoming more apparent that you still havent gotten the point of this post.

No one is criticizing the president because he isnt meddling in an issue that isnt broken. He isnt claiming one thing on abortion, then setting the table to do something else. He isnt trying to strip rights away from women.

So, for the umpteenth time, how am i wrong?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


He isnt trying to strip rights away from women.



That means he isn't trying to protect rights of unborn babies either.
edit on 5/2/2012 by bl4ke360 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Ron Paul stated on his own during a presidential debate that by allowing states to determine the laws, which should be the case BTW, that Roe vs Wade could be over turned over night, but that he, himself wouldn't write any legislation against abortion from the Federal level.

You've been sleeping.

Nothing to see here, move along.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by emberscott
 


The federal courts will have no jurisdiction over the right to perform an abortion, this much is true.

What they WILL have jurisdiction over is the federally granted rights of the fetus that was aborted. Which is why i call it a sidestep. The abortion will be, technically legal, right up until it is completed.


That is incorrect. You are not reading what is written in sec 3 and sec 4. This law would remove federal court interference in the same way the federal courts cannot interfere with the state death penalty laws.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





how am i wrong?


Ok maybe I shouldn't have went far to say that you're wrong, but misinformed...



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by macaronicaesar
 


I still don't think you people are getting it. He's technically not lying. The proposed bill would not abolish abortions. What it would do is give fetuses the same rights as a person. Therefore, if a state legalized abortion a doctor could go ahead and perform the abortion. However, as the fetus is considered a person he would be committing murder. So what doctor is going to perform an abortion when he knows that he is going to go to jail for a long time if does so?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


There is nothing to argue, you have no point. Dr Paul would not pass federal legislation outlawing abortion. He has stated so a gazillion times, not that it's even slightly important in the grand scheme of things.

The federal government has no roll in this discussion.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


He isnt trying to strip rights away from women.



That means he isn't trying to protect rights of unborn babies either.
edit on 5/2/2012 by bl4ke360 because: (no reason given)




He protects them as the law states.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


There is nothing to argue, you have no point. Dr Paul would not pass federal legislation outlawing abortion. He has stated so a gazillion times, not that it's even slightly important in the grand scheme of things.

The federal government has no roll in this discussion.


Then why is he pushing the "sanctity of Life Act" at the federal level? Care to explain?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by macaronicaesar
 


I still don't think you people are getting it. He's technically not lying. The proposed bill would not abolish abortions. What it would do is give fetuses the same rights as a person. Therefore, if a state legalized abortion a doctor could go ahead and perform the abortion. However, as the fetus is considered a person he would be committing murder. So what doctor is going to perform an abortion when he knows that he is going to go to jail for a long time if does so?


He is playing the same "status quo" politics that he claims to be against. Which makes him a liar.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





how am i wrong?


Ok maybe I shouldn't have went far to say that you're wrong, but misinformed...


So how am I misinformed? You keep saying these things, but offer NOTHING to back it up. Which makes the statement empty.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by emberscott

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by emberscott
 


The federal courts will have no jurisdiction over the right to perform an abortion, this much is true.

What they WILL have jurisdiction over is the federally granted rights of the fetus that was aborted. Which is why i call it a sidestep. The abortion will be, technically legal, right up until it is completed.


That is incorrect. You are not reading what is written in sec 3 and sec 4. This law would remove federal court interference in the same way the federal courts cannot interfere with the state death penalty laws.



No, you are misinterpreting law. The Federal court could not interfere with abortion. The rights of the fetus, however, would be federally protected.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Obama on Roe vs Wade


As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters,” Obama said. “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.



As president, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, which would appropriate federal money toward insurance plans that pay for abortions.


So whywasn't Obama scolded about this issue? Why all of a sudden it became a Ron Paul issue...
edit on 2-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Right but in any case they won't have any jurisdiction to pursue legal action.
Or am i reading that wrong?

It would be up to the state to determine whether or not abortion is legal or not.
Which fits in quite well with the constitutional view of states rights.
And since it's the states job to police abortion the federal government can't intervene.

And still the bill doesn't define things like. What happens if the mothers life is in danger if she has the baby?
A 1 month old fetus can't survive outside of a mothers body.

I think you're reading too much into this.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Ron Paul stated on his own during a presidential debate that by allowing states to determine the laws, which should be the case BTW, that Roe vs Wade could be over turned over night, but that he, himself wouldn't write any legislation against abortion from the Federal level.

You've been sleeping.

Nothing to see here, move along.


Again, then why is he ALREADY pushing the sanctity of life act on the FEDERAL level?

You are all being duped by status-quo politics, from a guy who claims to be against just that.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Right but in any case they won't have any jurisdiction to pursue legal action.
Or am i reading that wrong?

It would be up to the state to determine whether or not abortion is legal or not.
Which fits in quite well with the constitutional view of states rights.
And since it's the states job to police abortion the federal government can't intervene.

And still the bill doesn't define things like. What happens if the mothers life is in danger if she has the baby?
A 1 month old fetus can't survive outside of a mothers body.

I think you're reading too much into this.


They wont be able to prosecute for the abortion, no. They will be able to prosecute based on the infringement of the rights of the fetus.

I dont think you're reading enough into it. It is all right there.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
Obama on Roe vs Wade


As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters,” Obama said. “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.



As president, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, which would appropriate federal money toward insurance plans that pay for abortions.


So whywasn't Obama scolded about this issue? Why all of a sudden it became a Ron Paul issue...
edit on 2-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)


So what exactly does this have to do with the topic? And how is it comparable?

And furthermore, why do you continue to deflect to obama instead of simply addressing the topic? It isnt because you have no argument, is it?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





So what exactly does this have to do with the topic?
And how is it comparable?
And furthermore, why do you continue to deflect to obama instead of simply addressing the topic? It isnt because you have no argument, is it?


Because your obviously trying to divert attention that is why. Here we deny ignorance not embrace it...



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





So what exactly does this have to do with the topic?
And how is it comparable?
And furthermore, why do you continue to deflect to obama instead of simply addressing the topic? It isnt because you have no argument, is it?


Because your obviously trying to divert attention that is why. Here we deny ignorance not embrace it...


I think you mean "you're".

The only diverting going on here is by you. This thread isnt about obama (nor am I am obama supporter, as you are implying).

We do deny ignorance here, you are correct. Well, some of us. The rest just deflect from the topic by saying "well he does it too!"





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join