Ron Paul - clear on abortion

[ConstantineX]

[ 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 ]

QFT! Everyone wants activist judges for their pet issues.

[AlexM]

[ 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?

[Roland32]

[ 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

[AlexM]

[ 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".

[Klompy]

sweet batman over quoting

[MrBlah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, that's true. But even so, I believe that a woman still has a right to choose not to have a foetus in her womb, even if she is aware of the risk that there might be a tiny chance that she will get pregnant even though she's on the pill (I don't think she has the right to have it killed, if it's avoidable, though).

Obviously, it is a huge moral quandary whether it is okay to have an abortion, and I don't think the decision comes easy to any woman. But ultimately, the choice should be hers and nobody else's.

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

Translation: democracy works great... as long as everyone votes for people who think like I do.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, that's true. But even so, I believe that a woman still has a right to choose not to have a foetus in her womb, even if she is aware of the risk that there might be a tiny chance that she will get pregnant even though she's on the pill (I don't think she has the right to have it killed, if it's avoidable, though).

Obviously, it is a huge moral quandary whether it is okay to have an abortion, and I don't think the decision comes easy to any woman. But ultimately, the choice should be hers and nobody else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only quandry is if the foetus is a human or not which really is a matter for doctors. After that it becomes very clear cut. If the foetus is property the woman can do what she wants if it's not she can't morally have an abortion. I'm hugely anti religious but sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut. The world would be a far far better place if a certain type of woman didn't open her legs for any and every one and if a certain type of man didn't stick his dick in anything that moved. Now I'm not saying anyone has any right to tell people how when and how often to have sex but if you make a choice you should have to deal with the consequences. Freedom is about personal responsibility!

[Taso]

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.

[tomdemaine]

[ 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 ]

If that's true then fair enough. As a man in a pretty stable loving relationship it's not a major issue for me, but my point is it's a moral (not as the term has been hijacked by the religious crazies) issue not a governmental issue.