Ron Paul and the states-rights-sidestep

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Emberscott has covered this, there is nothing to discuss, the OP is asking someone to disprove something that hasn't happened or that he doesn't understand himself.

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

Emberscott has covered this, there is nothing to discuss, the OP is asking someone to disprove something that hasn't happened or that he doesn't understand himself.

So tell me how I am wrong. You all continue to troll the thread, but none of you will actually address the topic. Just saying someone is wrong doesnt make it so.

Some people here dont understand, thats for sure....

reply to post by captaintyinknots

I think you mean "you're".

Funny how you overlap with the nitpicking of grammatical errors, I think you should take a break, before your head explodes...

reply to post by captaintyinknots


That somebody is you. The sanctity of life act has nothing to do with outlawing abortion federally. Do you have any idea what you are on about?

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I think you mean "you're".

Funny how you overlap with the nitpicking of grammatical errors, I think you should take a break, before your head explodes...

Explodes? I am over here laughing at all the deflections and running away from the subject that is being done here.

That said, you sure are good at keeping up the off topic deflections as a means to not have to answer the challenge.

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

That somebody is you. The sanctity of life act has nothing to do with outlawing abortion federally. Do you have any idea what you are on about?

edit on 2-5-2012 by macaronicaesar because: (no reason given)

Nor did I say it was about that. It grants the fetus federally protected rights of a person. Which coincides with the topic.

Do you guys read?

So go on, show me where I am wrong.You all keep claiming it, yet no one has even ATTEMPTED to back it up

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Like others said you failed to challenge yourself into understanding what is really going on...You basically walked into a fight without the proper weaponry...

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Like others said you failed to challenge yourself into understanding what is really going on...You basically walked into a fight without the proper weaponry...

So show me where I am wrong. It should be easy, if Im so dumb. So far, you havent even tried....youve just deflected.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I think you're reading too much into it.

And I think this is a circular argument.

The government is defining when a person is a person.
However the bill comes back to say that the federal government can't interfere in a states right to regulate abortion.
If the fed did try to prosecute and a state did not legislate that an abortion is murder but a protected right.
How are they going to get that into a federal court? They can't because the bill expressly forbids it!

It doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I think you're reading too much into it.

And I think this is a circular argument.

The government is defining when a person is a person.
However the bill comes back to say that the federal government can't interfere in a states right to regulate abortion.
If the fed did try to prosecute and a state did not legislate that an abortion is murder but a protected right.
How are they going to get that into a federal court? They can't because the bill expressly forbids it!

It doesn't make sense to me.

They can get that into federal court because the "sanctity of life act" gives federal jurisdiction over the rights of the fetus.

The states rights thing is a smokescreen to get Roe V Wade repealed.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

It is also very well noted that he is staunchly anti-abortion

Dude the point is someone could be anti-abortion, and still be pro-life/pro-choice...So what is the big deal? It's called a mediator...

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
The states rights thing is a smokescreen to get Roe V Wade repealed.

I can't believe people argue with this... It's clear that the "legal personhood at conception" Ron Paul keeps pushing for is to make it ok for states to say that killing that "legal person" illegal... Duh!

I think RP supporters are so wrapped up in the thrall, they don't really know or care what he represents. That's the only explanation for the non-responses you're getting here. NO ONE can deny what you're saying with facts...

What Paul's giving to the states is the right to make abortion illegal. Or he would give it to them if he was president and he's NEVER going to be president... Thankfully.

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

It is also very well noted that he is staunchly anti-abortion

Dude the point is someone could be anti-abortion, and still be pro-life/pro-choice...So what is the big deal? It's called a mediator...

More off topic deflecting...you keep posting, yet you wont tell me how i am wrong. Why it that?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
The states rights thing is a smokescreen to get Roe V Wade repealed.

I can't believe people argue with this... It's clear that the "legal personhood at conception" Ron Paul keeps pushing for is to make it ok for states to say that killing that "legal person" illegal... Duh!

I think RP supporters are so wrapped up in the thrall, they don't really know or care what he represents. That's the only explanation for the non-responses you're getting here. NO ONE can deny what you're saying with facts...

What Paul's giving to the states is the right to make abortion illegal. Or he would give it to them if he was president and he's NEVER going to be president... Thankfully.

Well, they sort of dispute it.

Simply saying "you are wrong" is not much of a dispute.

90-some posts of nothing but deflections and rhetoric...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

What Paul's giving to the states is the right to make abortion illegal.

Exactly giving them the rights to choose what they want to do, correct? All he is offering is an "option" doesn't mean the States have to follow if they choose not to...

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

What Paul's giving to the states is the right to make abortion illegal.

Exactly giving them the rights to choose what they want to do, correct? All he is offering is an "option" doesn't mean the States have to follow if they choose not to...

So why wont you post on the subject of the thread?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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.

No you are misinterpreting this proposed law. It clearly says that the federal jurisdiction is non existent from the moment of conception. All rights are determined by the state courts without federal interference.

The rights of the fetus would receive no more protection than the rights of any person handed a death penalty in accordance with an enacted state law carried out within compliance of the united states code.

Now If you would be so kind as to point out where in the united states code the rights of the fetus would be protected from death by the federal courts overriding the state laws and explain how the fetus rights will be protected under federal law. I would appreciate that.

You might have a point if you can point it out. Cite something. Anything. Maybe it is written somewhere that an executioner taking the life a condemned person is subject to prosecution under federal law whether or not the action is sanctioned by state laws. That would be big! Until then.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

So why wont you post on the subject of the thread?

Because the subject of this thread is a fallacy the way you put it...

Originally posted by emberscott

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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.

No you are misinterpreting this proposed law. It clearly says that the federal jurisdiction is non existent from the moment of conception. All rights are determined by the state courts without federal interference.

The rights of the fetus would receive no more protection than the rights of any person handed a death penalty in accordance with an enacted state law carried out within compliance of the united states code.

Now If you would be so kind as to point out where in the united states code the rights of the fetus would be protected from death by the federal courts overriding the state laws and explain how the fetus rights will be protected under federal law. I would appreciate that.

You might have a point if you can point it out. Cite something. Anything. Maybe it is written somewhere that an executioner taking the life a condemned person is subject to prosecution under federal law whether or not the action is sanctioned by state laws. That would be big! Until then.

It clearly states the federal jursidiction over ABORTION ends at the time of conception. Not its jurisdiction over the rights of said fetus that was aborted. Get it yet?

I cant cite what is not there. And the lack of language defining it backs up my claim. If there is no specific language stating that there is no federal jurisdiction over the rights of the fetus, then the fact is that THAT will be used in a court of law as a reason why they would be allowed to prosecute.

Now, if you would mind pointing out to me where it says that there would be NO federal jurisdiction over the fetus' rights in this document that flatly GIVES those rights on a federal level to the fetus, Id love to see it. And maybe you can explain why RP would feel the need to push an act that gives federal rights to a fetus, but does not protect those rights.

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

So why wont you post on the subject of the thread?

Because the subject of this thread is a fallacy the way you put it...

Still going, yet not even an attempt to post ON TOPIC. You're making yourself way too obvious now.