Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."

OK, we know were Ron Paul stands on a fundamental issue as women's choice. No minced words in the above statement!

Why would such a candidate gain any popularity? IMO, because people are not aware or don't understand his reasoning!

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

I think his script writers need to work on this issue abit harder; most people will see through this. Also, most serious political speech makers have a huge disdain towards speeches that use Nazism as an analogy, especially in this case where he is likening the unborn fetus to the Jewish people.

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

It's quite easy to choose a rational ethics that condemns abortion. I don't care about this, even though I'm pro-choice.

However, it's impossible to argue for the rational superiority of theism in good faith, and absurd to argue for the priority of a specific religion (Christianity LDO.) So I'm pretty disillusioned with Paul after reading that other thread.

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why would such a candidate gain any popularity? IMO, because people are not aware or don't understand his reasoning!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, RP really gets under your skin eh? sweet

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would such a candidate gain any popularity? IMO, because people are not aware or don't understand his reasoning!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, RP really gets under your skin eh? sweet

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, RP reallys gets you a boner eh? sweet

Seriously you whole banner for Ron Paul is kinda obsessive compulisve imo- considering this is a poker forum. I dont think it should be allowed really either, its abit like spam and it IS propoganda.

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."

OK, we know were Ron Paul stands on a fundamental issue as women's choice. No minced words in the above statement!

Why would such a candidate gain any popularity? IMO, because people are not aware or don't understand his reasoning!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul thinks abortion is murder. So what? What matters is whether he will favor the proper constitutional methods to address the issue of abortion. As long as he favors following the Constitution above everything else, it doesn't matter much what his personally held beliefs are about any one specific topic (like abortion). I have read that his voting record in Congress has always been based stricly on accordance with the Constitution.

Do you have anything that shows what he thinks the proper constitutional procedure would be to address the question of abortion? I think I read that he thinks Roe v. Wade (which prohibited the states from determining the legality of abortion) was a flawed decision (and IMO it may indeed have been). If so, he's far from alone in this view. By the way, is Roe v. Wade (or a related case) scheduled to be revisited or heard by SCOTUS?

When it comes to federal authority and action, following the Constitution > personal beliefs, and as long as Ron Paul supports following the Constitution in addressing such issues, he's miles ahead of any mental midgets (be they politicians, voters or pundits) who think that select specific issues are more important than the Constitution.

Ron Paul says that most of the troubles America finds itself in, are because of a falling away from following the Constitution, and that if America were to return to following the Constitution, most of our problems would be solved. I think he's right on that.

As long as Ron Paul favors a properly constitutional approach to the abortion issue, IMO he's right regardless of his personal views on abortion, and he would be a very good President if he holds to that principle in addressing every issue.

Thanks for reading.

edit 2: on Ron Paul's record:

"Who other than Dr. Paul has “voted nine out of nine times against raising his own pay”? Who other than Dr. Paul has refused to partake in the obscene congressional pension scheme, a veritable shakedown of the indentured taxpayer?

Nicknamed “Dr. No” for voting against all legislation that isn’t expressly authorized by the Constitution, Ron Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget; never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership; never voted to increase the power of the executive branch; and never taken a government-paid junket.

And he voted no to the Iraq war."

Ilana Mercer compares Huckabee and Paul, illustrating great differences between them

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."

OK, we know were Ron Paul stands on a fundamental issue as women's choice. No minced words in the above statement!

Why would such a candidate gain any popularity? IMO, because people are not aware or don't understand his reasoning!

[/ QUOTE ]

what the [censored]?

You just posted a block of text about how Ron Paul is against the slaughter of unborn children, and you see it as a strike against WOMENS' RIGHTS!?

It's absolutely unbelievable how the mind of the left works....

A woman can birth the head of her full term child, drill a hole in its head and suck out his brain and it's ok, that's just an abortion and she has the right to decide. But some maniac KILLS a woman who is 6 months pregnant, and he should be charged with 2 murders?

Thank GOD we have enough people like Ron Paul in government to at least slow the pro-abortion people down...

I don't have to agree with liberals on everything, and I can fully understand some of their "values" and why they would hold them. But abortion is just one where you guys are all wet.

You're killing human beings.

If you dont want your child for your own selfish reasons, then give it up for adoption. There are a lot of people who want to adopt infants. Your problem lies with neglecting the child for 5 or 6 years, then having it taken away from you and it gets stuck in the foster care system. A good system, but a system severely lacking in resources. That, and few people looking to adopt want to deal with the emotionally damaged child you have created.

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

Im against abortion... but im pro-choice and a libertarian (not of the US libertarianism though) so I think it should be up to the individual to decide if they want to abort their unborn baby. I certainly don't think its upto a conservative (or liberal) judge to force a 17 year old girl to give bith to an unwanted baby. There are also sensible domestic and economic reasons as to why abortion should be allowed e.g crime rates and the impossibility of preventing underground (more dangerous) abortion clinics.

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

Even if I didn't support Dr. Paul I would have to start supporting because he drives Midge nuts.

Neither Dr. Paul's personal feelings about abortion nor what should be legislated regarding it at the state level have any relevence to his run for the presidency, because it is a state issue and not a federal one. The "worst" that Dr. Paul has done is introduce legislation to restore state sovereignty on the issue (just like he would do with innumerable other issues).

How many times does this have to come up?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 2007. N=1,002 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all registered voters).

"In deciding which presidential candidate to support in 2008, which one of the following issues is most important to you: [see below]?" Options rotated

ALL Republicans Democrats Independents
% % % %
The economy and jobs 22 14 30 19
Iraq 19 13 26 19
Health care 17 14 22 15
Terrorism and national security 15 27 5 14
Taxes and government spending 10 16 4 11
Immigration 7 10 3 8
The environment and global warming 5 1 7 8
Other/None of these (vol.) 1 2 - 1
Unsure 4 3 3 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBS News Poll. Oct. 12-16, 2007. N=1,143 registered voters nationwide.

"Which one issue would you most like to hear the candidates for president discuss during the 2008 presidential campaign?" Open-ended

%
War in Iraq 26
Health care 25
Economy/Jobs 11
Immigration 6
Education 3
Environment 2
Social Security 2
Defense/Military 2
Terrorism (general) 2
Abortion 1
Other 12
Unsure 8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEWSFLASH: NOBODY GIVES A [censored].

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Im against abortion... but im pro-choice and a libertarian (not of the US libertarianism though) so I think it should be up to the individual to decide if they want to abort their unborn baby. I certainly don't think its upto a conservative (or liberal) judge to force a 17 year old girl to give bith to an unwanted baby. There are also sensible domestic and economic reasons as to why abortion should be allowed e.g crime rates and the impossibility of preventing underground (more dangerous) abortion clinics.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds like the same argument the left is using to justify giving out birth control to 10 year olds in the public school system.

"Well, they're going to have sex anyway, so we should give them taxpayer supplied birth control. But remember, we can't tell the parents about it, because that's infringing on little Sally's personal rights. And if we told her parents, they might not use it!"

/headexplodes

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul supporters know exactly where he stands on this issue and as borodog brought up, it's just not a big issue to them. I think the majority of his support comes from males so it's probably not high on their radar. His personal views on abortion most likely don't concern very many people and they shouldn't matter. He believes and I believe the states should decide this issue.

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

That quote is his personal belief. If his actions as President were based upon his beliefs in the Constitution, he would not try and get Roe v. Wade overturned.

He would keep the Supreme Court level, i.e., 3 conservatives, 3 moderates, 3 liberals.

At least that is what I would do. I do not believe in abortion, however, I would consider it a crime/misdemeanor worthy of impeachment, if I were to try (as President) and manipulate the court system solely to get my way.

He also believes we should do away with the Dept of Homeland Security and the Energy, Education and the CIA. He won't get his way there either.

What he will do:
Veto any budget greater than the government's revenues. When he does that, he could possibly become inept, as Congress will simply decide what bill is worthy of an override of his veto.....unless, Americans start screaming the way they did over amnesty, and the way they are now over giving illegals drivers licenses.

He will also give us (citizens) our privacy back. He will strip government of its privacy. He will require Congress declare war, rather than let them run & hide. He will return our forces from overseas. He will not spend billions on a missle defense system in Europe.

He remembers, and believes, in what Dwight D. Eisenhower had to say in his Farwell Adress concerning the Military Industrial Machine.

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even if I didn't support Dr. Paul I would have to start supporting because he drives Midge nuts.

Neither Dr. Paul's personal feelings about abortion nor what should be legislated regarding it at the state level have any relevence to his run for the presidency, because it is a state issue and not a federal one. The "worst" that Dr. Paul has done is introduce legislation to restore state sovereignty on the issue (just like he would do with innumerable other issues).

How many times does this have to come up?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 2007. N=1,002 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all registered voters).

"In deciding which presidential candidate to support in 2008, which one of the following issues is most important to you: [see below]?" Options rotated

ALL Republicans Democrats Independents
% % % %
The economy and jobs 22 14 30 19
Iraq 19 13 26 19
Health care 17 14 22 15
Terrorism and national security 15 27 5 14
Taxes and government spending 10 16 4 11
Immigration 7 10 3 8
The environment and global warming 5 1 7 8
Other/None of these (vol.) 1 2 - 1
Unsure 4 3 3 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBS News Poll. Oct. 12-16, 2007. N=1,143 registered voters nationwide.

"Which one issue would you most like to hear the candidates for president discuss during the 2008 presidential campaign?" Open-ended

%
War in Iraq 26
Health care 25
Economy/Jobs 11
Immigration 6
Education 3
Environment 2
Social Security 2
Defense/Military 2
Terrorism (general) 2
Abortion 1
Other 12
Unsure 8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEWSFLASH: NOBODY GIVES A [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a poll that concluded 90% of Kerry voters were actually completely wrong about his position on health care because the important issues simply dont get addressed. In reality the 'other' section is like 90% i.e. is the candidate funny? are they a family man? etc.- the issues that are sold to the public.

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

Wow.

Killing people = wrong
I hope you don't disagree with that.

At what point does a someone become a person?
Conception - You should be pro-life
Birth - You should be pro-choice
Sometime inbetween - ?

Pretending this is a simple issue and yelling: ZOMG! He's a monster for being pro-life is asinine.

A baby weighing one pound can often be saved now if it's taken out of the womb. Kind explain why this poor thing doesn't deserve a chance to live?

(Incidentally, I'm not claiming I have a good answer, I'm abortion agnostic, I'm just not gonna claim that it's a totally LDO issue.)

Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

This is something of a sticky issue for a libraterian. Normally you don't want the government making any decisions for you, but this is only the case in matters where no outside party is being harmed. Do drugs, you bear the consequences. Don't go to work in the morning, you bear the consequences. Let another guy stick a [censored] up your butt, you bear the consequences.

With abortion though, there is a third party, the child. You are clearly committing violence against the child, murder. What it all comes down to in the end is when you think lives begins. If you think it begins at birth then your just removing a growth in your uterus, perfectely legal. If it begins at conception it is outright murder and you should go to jail. There are many times in between people might choose.

How do we determine personhood? Well certainly not on an individual level. Some jackass can't just decide I'm not a person so he can make me his slave and shoot me if I disagree. The issue has to be decided by a figure in authority. What is life?

So you've got two choices for decision makers. States and the federal government. (Our society chose courts, which hasn't seemed to work). Ron Paul thinks the states should decide. I do too.

P.S.

Have you heard his abortion speech. As a medical student he walked in on an abortion being performed in the 60s. The doctor removed a well developed baby that could even breath and cry on its own. Then they throwed it in a waste basket in the corner and ignored it as it kept crying and crying until it died.

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

That incident has haunted him and his conscience for almost fifty years, and informs his personal opinions on the issue greatly. I find it impossible to begrudge the man, an obgyn who has delivered 4000 babies, his opinion on thd subject.

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

so he would be ok with a woman doing drugs, but what about a pregnant woman doing drugs?

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
With abortion though, there is a third party, the child. You are clearly committing violence against the child, murder. What it all comes down to in the end is when you think lives begins. If you think it begins at birth then your just removing a growth in your uterus, perfectely legal. If it begins at conception it is outright murder and you should go to jail. There are many times in between people might choose.

[/ QUOTE ]
The issue is a little more complicated than that. Because even if the foetus should be considered a person, that does not necessarily mean that this person has a right to live on the expense of the mother's interests. I.e. the contention that aborting a foetus that can be considered a person is automatically murder has to be questioned.

[ QUOTE ]
That incident has haunted him and his conscience for almost fifty years, and informs his personal opinions on the issue greatly. I find it impossible to begrudge the man, an obgyn who has delivered 4000 babies, his opinion on thd subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
And I don't begrudge him for that and I don't think anybody should. But don't you think that it is valid and even necessary to question his views on the subject if they are, at least in part, based on a horrible event in his life and not an informed decision?

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]

Why would such a candidate gain any popularity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because most people care a lot more about the war and the economy and a ton of other issues than abortion. I definitely disagree with him on this and I also disagree with him on immigration, but I agree with him on just about everything else. 90% agreement vs. the 40% agreement I might get out of my second choice is good.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, because people are not aware or don't understand his reasoning!

[/ QUOTE ]

No, people are completely aware. He doesn't hide his views.

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With abortion though, there is a third party, the child. You are clearly committing violence against the child, murder. What it all comes down to in the end is when you think lives begins. If you think it begins at birth then your just removing a growth in your uterus, perfectely legal. If it begins at conception it is outright murder and you should go to jail. There are many times in between people might choose.

[/ QUOTE ]
The issue is a little more complicated than that. Because even if the foetus should be considered a person, that does not necessarily mean that this person has a right to live on the expense of the mother's interests. I.e. the contention that aborting a foetus that can be considered a person is automatically murder has to be questioned.

[ QUOTE ]
That incident has haunted him and his conscience for almost fifty years, and informs his personal opinions on the issue greatly. I find it impossible to begrudge the man, an obgyn who has delivered 4000 babies, his opinion on thd subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
And I don't begrudge him for that and I don't think anybody should. But don't you think that it is valid and even necessary to question his views on the subject if they are, at least in part, based on a horrible event in his life and not an informed decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a foetus is a human being (I don't know) then it absolutely has the right live at the expense of it's mothers interests. Having sex without protection or with inadequate protection is signing a contract saying I will support any child that occurs as a result. You can give the child up for adoption but you have a positive moral obligation to make sure that it is well cared for. This is a chosen positive obligation when you initiated the action of having sex.

edit : I'm not giving the father a pass here either. He is signatory to the contract too. Ie if because of her biology the mother needs to take unpaid time off from work he has a chosen positive moral obligation to financially support her. As for the child the obligation is both financial and emotional.

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

I really don't think it is more complicated then that. Except for cases where a health problem threatens the mothers life, the pain of child birth can in no way justify murder.

Don't try to feed me the it's my body arguement. It was your body when you decided to have sex too. And now you've got a responsibility to deal with, because you created a life. If we charge people with murder for throwing a newborn in a dumpster, we should charge them with murder for doing it 10 minutes before birth too.

------------------------------------------------------------

I think his personal experience is very relevant. Pro-life people are only able to support thier posistion if they believe the fetus isn't alive. The arguement that it is alive but it is ok to committ murder because the women finds pregnancy inconvienient is sickening.

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
If a foetus is a human being (I don't know) then it absolutely has the right live at the expense of it's mothers interests. Having sex without protection or with inadequate protection is signing a contract saying I will support any child that occurs as a result. You can give the child up for adoption but you have a positive moral obligation to make sure that it is well cared for. This is a chosen positive obligation when you initiated the action of having sex.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about rape victims? Does the foetus lose its right to live because the mother didn't implicitly sign a contract?
What if the mother used adequate protection but it didn't work?
I'm not saying that a mother has a right to have the foetus killed (drowning a born baby should be regarded as manslaughter in my book). But I do think that a mother has the right to have a foetus removed from her body (edit: whatever the consequences might be).

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a foetus is a human being (I don't know) then it absolutely has the right live at the expense of it's mothers interests. Having sex without protection or with inadequate protection is signing a contract saying I will support any child that occurs as a result. You can give the child up for adoption but you have a positive moral obligation to make sure that it is well cared for. This is a chosen positive obligation when you initiated the action of having sex.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about rape victims? Does the foetus lose its right to live because the mother didn't implicitly sign a contract?
What if the mother used adequate protection but it didn't work?
I'm not saying that a mother has a right to have the foetus killed (drowning a born baby should be regarded as manslaughter in my book). But I do think that a mother has the right to have a foetus removed from her body (edit: whatever the consequences might be).

[/ QUOTE ]

Rape is a fringe case with no really satisfactory answer but that doesn't invalidate the proposition. The best I've got is that the rapist is fully responsible financially for the child and for the mother's emotional pain and physical suffering and if he can't afford it then it's morally justified for him to be forced to work for zero compensation until his debt is paid or for his entire life whichever is sooner.

As for your second point no. Having voluntary sex is always a choice, (by definition) so a condom splitting etc is a risk you know about before you make the choice and perform a positive actoin so there's no out there.

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't think it is more complicated then that. Except for cases where a health problem threatens the mothers life, the pain of child birth can in no way justify murder.

Don't try to feed me the it's my body arguement. It was your body when you decided to have sex too. And now you've got a responsibility to deal with, because you created a life. If we charge people with murder for throwing a newborn in a dumpster, we should charge them with murder for doing it 10 minutes before birth too.

------------------------------------------------------------

I think his personal experience is very relevant. Pro-life people are only able to support thier posistion if they believe the fetus isn't alive. The arguement that it is alive but it is ok to committ murder because the women finds pregnancy inconvienient is sickening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it a fact, that unless the Prez manipulated the Supreme Court by stacking it with ultra conservatives, that we will never see Roe v. Wade overturned?

Wouldn't that be a misdemeanor act by a prez opening himself up to impeachment? Isn't Prez elected to protect our Constitution and doesn't the Constitution call for the Supreme Court to a representative body of all the people?
Wouldn't that require 3 conservatives, 3 moderates and 3 liberals?

And since the Court has ruled on Roe v. Wade, how can the Congress say, no, the Supreme Court is wrong, we are going to give the states the right to decide? The Supreme Court has spoken. They can't be overruled by a law passed by Congress can they?

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

There is nothing libertarian about being pro-choice. Libertarians face the same fundamental question that everyone else faces regarding whether the fetus has a right to life. Even a libertarian can't be pro-choice if he thinks that the fetus has a right to life, since libertarians don't support freedom to kill others.

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

Again, how is this even on the radar compared to the religious rhetoric? Abortion is an extremely nasty thing on all fronts, even if you rescued your personal freedom with a clutch coat-hanger or flight of stairs you should still feel sad about it.

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

This is laughable. The supreme court is not a political body that passes legislation. There aren't supposed to be liberal or conservative judges. There are suppose to be impartial judges that protect the consitution. They don't change it, they enforce it.

Also, the supreme court is specifically there NOT to be a representative body of the people. That is what the president and congress are suppose to be. The supreme court is suppose to enforce the constitution. The purpose of the constitution is to say NO to the legislative body when it violates what the constitution says. We live in a constitutional democracy, which means it is not mob rule.

Read Roe v Wade. Read the whole thing. The opinions, the justification, the dissents. You'll quickly realize one thing: these guys want abortion to be legal, even if it isn't in the constitution. If the constitution says that "the sky is blue", and a judge comes along and says from now on he interprets "the sky is blue" to mean "the sky is brown" it still says "the sky is blue" in reality. Judges have the power to make it say what they want and have that enforced, but that doesn't actually change the truth. Think for yourself. Read the actual bloody cases. Study the theory of constitutional law.

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
The arguement that it is alive but it is ok to committ murder because the women finds pregnancy inconvienient is sickening.

[/ QUOTE ]
The argument that a woman should be forced to keep the foetus inside her body although she does not want to is sickening.

[ QUOTE ]
... even if you rescued your personal freedom with a clutch coat-hanger or flight of stairs you should still feel sad about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, unlike those women who have abortions and love it so much, they are about to explode in joy and delight!
Seriously, WTF?

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is laughable. The supreme court is not a political body that passes legislation. There aren't supposed to be liberal or conservative judges. There are suppose to be impartial judges that protect the consitution. They don't change it, they enforce it.

Also, the supreme court is specifically there NOT to be a representative body of the people. That is what the president and congress are suppose to be. The supreme court is suppose to enforce the constitution. The purpose of the constitution is to say NO to the legislative body when it violates what the constitution says. We live in a constitutional democracy, which means it is not mob rule.

Read Roe v Wade. Read the whole thing. The opinions, the justification, the dissents. You'll quickly realize one thing: these guys want abortion to be legal, even if it isn't in the constitution. If the constitution says that "the sky is blue", and a judge comes along and says from now on he interprets "the sky is blue" to mean "the sky is brown" it still says "the sky is blue" in reality. Judges have the power to make it say what they want and have that enforced, but that doesn't actually change the truth. Think for yourself. Read the actual bloody cases. Study the theory of constitutional law.

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone who has read Roe v Wade, are you sure you are not just reading in this venom of legislating from the bench?

This argument that Roe v Wade is some absolutely astonishing clearly anti-constitution decision is just propaganda.

I clearly follow the logic of the decision, from liberty we get the right to privacy, and from the right to privacy the court simply states that it is unconstitutional for a government to MANDATE what a person can do with their own body. How is this legislating? It is preventing legislation.

Remember those who wish to say Roe v Wade is unconstitutional are stating that the constitution gives us NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!! We are not just talking about abortion here.

I can think of nothing more closely tied to liberty than privacy.

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
the court simply states that it is unconstitutional for a government to MANDATE what a person can do with their own body. How is this legislating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Constitution was designed to restrict the federal government, not the state governments.

[ QUOTE ]

Remember those who wish to say Roe v Wade is unconstitutional are stating that the constitution gives us NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!! We are not just talking about abortion here.

I can think of nothing more closely tied to liberty than privacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete BS. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, but there is definitely a right to privacy. The reason RvW is unconstitutioanl is because it restricts the states and the Constitution simply doesn't restrict the states in this way. If there had been a federal law banning abortion and the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, they would have been correct.

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the court simply states that it is unconstitutional for a government to MANDATE what a person can do with their own body. How is this legislating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Constitution was designed to restrict the federal government, not the state governments.

[ QUOTE ]

Remember those who wish to say Roe v Wade is unconstitutional are stating that the constitution gives us NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!! We are not just talking about abortion here.

I can think of nothing more closely tied to liberty than privacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete BS. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, but there is definitely a right to privacy. The reason RvW is unconstitutioanl is because it restricts the states and the Constitution simply doesn't restrict the states in this way. If there had been a federal law banning abortion and the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, they would have been correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, maybe you should brush up on the 10th amendment. The states have power that is neither prohibited by the constitution or handed to federal. The court says that right of privacy is being infringed upon by State LAW banning abortion, this is PROHIBITED by the constitution.


As far as to right of privacy, those on the Supreme COurt who would like to overturn Roe v Wade (Scalia, Thomas) would strongly disagree with you there

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the court simply states that it is unconstitutional for a government to MANDATE what a person can do with their own body. How is this legislating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Constitution was designed to restrict the federal government, not the state governments.

[ QUOTE ]

Remember those who wish to say Roe v Wade is unconstitutional are stating that the constitution gives us NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!! We are not just talking about abortion here.

I can think of nothing more closely tied to liberty than privacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete BS. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, but there is definitely a right to privacy. The reason RvW is unconstitutioanl is because it restricts the states and the Constitution simply doesn't restrict the states in this way. If there had been a federal law banning abortion and the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, they would have been correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, maybe you should brush up on the 10th amendment. The states have power that is neither prohibited by the constitution or handed to federal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
The court says that right of privacy is being infringed upon by State LAW banning abortion, this is PROHIBITED by the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please point out the section of the Constitution that prohibits the states from violating rights.

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

The fetus doesn't get there out of thin air. Excluding the fringe case of rape, the women has to engage in voluntary activity to get pregnant.

Your arguement is akin to someone eating a hamburger because they like the taste, and then complaining that they now have fat on thier gut.

The fetus, by contrast, didn't make any choices. The fetus is just there. It didn't choose to be in this womans womb, the woman choose to create him.

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the court simply states that it is unconstitutional for a government to MANDATE what a person can do with their own body. How is this legislating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Constitution was designed to restrict the federal government, not the state governments.

[ QUOTE ]

Remember those who wish to say Roe v Wade is unconstitutional are stating that the constitution gives us NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!! We are not just talking about abortion here.

I can think of nothing more closely tied to liberty than privacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete BS. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, but there is definitely a right to privacy. The reason RvW is unconstitutioanl is because it restricts the states and the Constitution simply doesn't restrict the states in this way. If there had been a federal law banning abortion and the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, they would have been correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, maybe you should brush up on the 10th amendment. The states have power that is neither prohibited by the constitution or handed to federal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
The court says that right of privacy is being infringed upon by State LAW banning abortion, this is PROHIBITED by the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please point out the section of the Constitution that prohibits the states from violating rights.

[/ QUOTE ]


I love your question begging, instead of pointing out the obvious, I will ask you to please reread previous post.

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fetus, by contrast, didn't make any choices. The fetus is just there. It didn't choose to be in this womans womb, the woman choose to create him.

[/ QUOTE ] No, she chose to have sex, not to create a foetus, otherwise she wouldn't want to get it out of her body.

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the court simply states that it is unconstitutional for a government to MANDATE what a person can do with their own body. How is this legislating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Constitution was designed to restrict the federal government, not the state governments.

[ QUOTE ]

Remember those who wish to say Roe v Wade is unconstitutional are stating that the constitution gives us NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!! We are not just talking about abortion here.

I can think of nothing more closely tied to liberty than privacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete BS. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, but there is definitely a right to privacy. The reason RvW is unconstitutioanl is because it restricts the states and the Constitution simply doesn't restrict the states in this way. If there had been a federal law banning abortion and the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, they would have been correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, maybe you should brush up on the 10th amendment. The states have power that is neither prohibited by the constitution or handed to federal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
The court says that right of privacy is being infringed upon by State LAW banning abortion, this is PROHIBITED by the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please point out the section of the Constitution that prohibits the states from violating rights.

[/ QUOTE ]


I love your question begging, instead of pointing out the obvious, I will ask you to please reread previous post.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you can't point out where in the Constitution this is said.

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fetus, by contrast, didn't make any choices. The fetus is just there. It didn't choose to be in this womans womb, the woman choose to create him.

[/ QUOTE ] No, she chose to have sex, not to create a foetus, otherwise she wouldn't want to get it out of her body.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like saying that someone chose to play poker but they didn't choose to lose. While technically true, it's the risk you take.

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the court simply states that it is unconstitutional for a government to MANDATE what a person can do with their own body. How is this legislating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Constitution was designed to restrict the federal government, not the state governments.

[ QUOTE ]

Remember those who wish to say Roe v Wade is unconstitutional are stating that the constitution gives us NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!! We are not just talking about abortion here.

I can think of nothing more closely tied to liberty than privacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete BS. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, but there is definitely a right to privacy. The reason RvW is unconstitutioanl is because it restricts the states and the Constitution simply doesn't restrict the states in this way. If there had been a federal law banning abortion and the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, they would have been correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, maybe you should brush up on the 10th amendment. The states have power that is neither prohibited by the constitution or handed to federal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
The court says that right of privacy is being infringed upon by State LAW banning abortion, this is PROHIBITED by the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please point out the section of the Constitution that prohibits the states from violating rights.

[/ QUOTE ]


I love your question begging, instead of pointing out the obvious, I will ask you to please reread previous post.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you can't point out where in the Constitution this is said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, do you ever think, or do you enjoy being an intagonist to much?

Please read the 10th Amendment you stooge. The States cannot MAKE ANY LAW THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS!!!!!!!

Michigan can not legislate that all citizens of its state will be Mormans, because this is prohibited by the constituion because it infringes the freedom of religion of its citizens.

You should be embarrassed.

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

Ron Paul : "Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law."

Hah. I can hear the mass grinding of teeth of our Libertarian friends, including the teeth of that Alfalfa Gang known as the ACers. Sheesh. Ron Paul wants the State to define what is and what is not a person.

I thought we were getting all those assault weapons specifically to have every man decide such things for himself, weren't we??...

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]

Why would such a candidate gain any popularity? IMO, because people are not aware or don't understand his reasoning!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because abortion is pretty much a non issue to me compared to the more important things going on.