Ron Paul - clear on abortion - Page 8

Kurn, son of Mogh · #71 11-11-2007, 10:23 AM

Meh. When has his position on this issue *not* been clear. He left the Libertarian Party years ago specifically because of their non-position on abortion. That information has been readily available to anyone who wanted to check on it.

Besides

"the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other"

He sure as hell is right about that. What he misses, is by NOT accepting the LP's non-position, he's playing right into that.

Roland32 · #72 11-11-2007, 11:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I KNOW AND I'M ASKING YOU WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBIT STATES FROM MAKING THIS LAW?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Where does it say this?

[/ QUOTE ]

14th Amendment

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. The courts certainly use the 14th Amendment to rationalize their decisions, just like they use the Commerce Clause, but their made up justifications for this are absurd and obvious. It's very blatant "lawyering".

[/ QUOTE ]

???? Seriously do you just say things you want to be true, and assume that makes it so.

Here From Wikipedia

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments (known as the Reconstruction Amendments), first intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses among others. It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 28, 1868.[1] It is perhaps the most significant structural change to the Constitution since the passage of the United States Bill of Rights. The amendment provides a broad definition of national citizenship, overturning the Dred Scott case, which excluded African Americans. It requires the states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons (not only to citizens) within their jurisdictions , and was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle legal segregation, as in Brown v. Board of Education. Its Due Process Clause has driven much important and controversial case law regarding privacy rights, abortion (see Roe v. Wade), and other issues.

The other two post-Civil War amendments are the Thirteenth Amendment (banning slavery) and the Fifteenth Amendment (banning race-based voting qualifications). According to Supreme Court Justice Noah Swayne, "Fairly construed, these amendments may be said to rise to the dignity of a new Magna Carta."[2]

bills217 · #73 11-11-2007, 04:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't doctors/scientists agreed that the fetus isn't a human?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the opposite in fact.

Edit: Ron Paul himself is of course an OB/GYN.

AlexM · #74 11-11-2007, 09:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It requires the states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons (not only to citizens) within their jurisdictions

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. This is the clause that's used to apply the First Amendment to the states and it takes a radical "interpretation" to do so. It was certainly not intended that way by the people who made it and it took 50+ years before the Supreme Court went in and changed it to be that way. Pretty much any time part of the Constitution has existed for 50+ years before being "interpreted" in a new light, you know that "interpretation" is complete BS.

Dima2000123 · #75 11-11-2007, 09:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't doctors/scientists agreed that the fetus isn't a human?

In any case, the point is that it's a state issue, not a federal issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
The opposite, the fetus is biologically human, and that issue is not under debate. The question is whether that human being is a person (which sounds like a hell of a creepy question to ask, but YMMV.)

ikestoys · #76 11-11-2007, 10:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haven't doctors/scientists agreed that the fetus isn't a human?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the opposite in fact.

Edit: Ron Paul himself is of course an OB/GYN.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont' see how the fact he is a OB/GYN gives him the authority to limit what medical procedures a person can have done. In fact, I'm sure that a poll of OB/GYN would come out strongly in favor of abortion rights. Someone elaborate?

Taso · #77 11-11-2007, 10:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haven't doctors/scientists agreed that the fetus isn't a human?

In any case, the point is that it's a state issue, not a federal issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
The opposite, the fetus is biologically human, and that issue is not under debate. The question is whether that human being is a person (which sounds like a hell of a creepy question to ask, but YMMV.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you guys give me a source for this? I'm against abortion, and while trying to convince mi hermano about Ron Paul (this is one of the few posistions he disagrees with Paul on) it would prove useful to have a link.

Borodog · #78 11-11-2007, 10:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haven't doctors/scientists agreed that the fetus isn't a human?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the opposite in fact.

Edit: Ron Paul himself is of course an OB/GYN.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont' see how the fact he is a OB/GYN gives him the authority to limit what medical procedures a person can have done.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. Nor is he seeking to. Stop projecting.

ikestoys · #79 11-11-2007, 11:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haven't doctors/scientists agreed that the fetus isn't a human?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the opposite in fact.

Edit: Ron Paul himself is of course an OB/GYN.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont' see how the fact he is a OB/GYN gives him the authority to limit what medical procedures a person can have done.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. Nor is he seeking to. Stop projecting.

[/ QUOTE ]

then why does it keep getting mentioned? as a fun fact?

I'm pretty sure that people are backing RP assertion that the fetus is a human by stating he's an OBGYN... Common medical practice treats the fetus as part of a mother, so while the fetus is human (ie not alien) it isn't a separate identity. RP's assertion that a fetus is a human separate from his mother, while I sympathize with it, isn't commonly accepted

AlexM · #80 11-11-2007, 11:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haven't doctors/scientists agreed that the fetus isn't a human?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the opposite in fact.

Edit: Ron Paul himself is of course an OB/GYN.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont' see how the fact he is a OB/GYN gives him the authority to limit what medical procedures a person can have done.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. Nor is he seeking to. Stop projecting.

[/ QUOTE ]

then why does it keep getting mentioned? as a fun fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's an issue that is important to a lot of people, so he gets asked about it? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]