Ron Paul is pro-choice on abortion, state by state

[PKevman]

Ron Paul is not willing to stand up for the life of the unborn OVER the state's rights.

Because it is a violation of the Constitution.

Thank you for your honesty. Please consider what you have just admitted. You've just conceded the entire point that Bob was making all along about Ron Paul...
Even if you were right about this being a violation of the Constitution (and as Delmar pointed out well you aren't), I will choose life over a man-made document every day!

 

[PKevman]

14th Amendment is a dead amendment being the ratification of it was unconstitutional.

I really wish people studied real history and not this revisionist mumbo jumbo

Maybe what you're reading is the revisionist mumbo jumbo Doc?

Hi by the way! How are ya?

 

[PKevman]

Then a state legalizing abortion would be against the law wouldn't it?

Against what law? In your view the states are autonomous from the federal government. If the state makes a law, by your type of government who's to tell it that its wrong?

 

[PKevman]

I simply don't get what you are thinking! The 14 amendment of the Constitution delegates, to the federal government, the power to prohibit states from making laws that don't protect the innocent.

And so they hate the 14th amendment. That I don't get!

 

[S†ephen]

Good, I'm finally glad we are here once again: and then in your view what should happen? Should they lose "statehood"? Who would enforce it?

They should lose statehood.

And, any US organization that so chooses no longer needs to work with them or protect them.

They essentially become their own mini country.

 

[Ktoyou]

Are you aware that the states ratified the 14th amendment?

Yes, that is true, however we were absolutely forced to because had we not we would have lost our civilization altogether. When forced by destruction, one often gives in to the demands of the conqueror.

 

[S†ephen]

Thank you for your honesty. Please consider what you have just admitted. You've just conceded the entire point that Bob was making all along about Ron Paul...
Even if you were right about this being a violation of the Constitution (and as Delmar pointed out well you aren't), I will choose life over a man-made document every day!

Nice try...

Bob has lied himself silly. Ron is pro life limited by the Constitution.

If you and Bob wish to create your own little dictatorship go ahead. We saw what happened with Roe v Wade. You know what road an absolute law can lead to.

 

[Ktoyou]

They should lose statehood.

And, any US organization that so chooses no longer needs to work with them or protect them.

They essentially become their own mini country.

That is a dream gone with the wind

 

[drbrumley]

Maybe what you're reading is the revisionist mumbo jumbo Doc?

Hi by the way! How are ya?

Hey Kev, doing great. Hope all is well with you.

Now, that is a fair comment, and one that needs to be proved.

Kev, do you deny any of the following, and if so, why?

Let's see, they voted on this amendment in 1865, after the War of Northern Aggression. The Southern states rejected it, along with the border states, and as you SHOULD know, it wasn't ratified. The Party at the time in charge, the Republican Party, put the entire South under military rule under the Reconstruction Act of 1867. The reason that law was passed according to the Republicans in the North was to to compel by force the South to vote for the amendment "at the point of a bayonet." Some freedom there huh? In which, President Andrew Johnson said that this act was "absolute despotism." You in favor of despotism Clete?

The South eventually voted to ratify this amendment, not under their free will, but under coercion. And soon after that Clete, two Northern states-Ohio and New Jersey, withdrew their vote because of the disgusting UnConstitutional actions of Republicans who dominated the Federal Government at the time. Of course, those slimeballs, again not under the Constitution, ignored this and declared the amendment ratified.

 

[PKevman]

Mr. Kevin,

Why is it murder when a state kills a child, but not murder when they kill a homosexual?

Neither the child nor the homosexual have killed anyone.

Ok let's break this down for you again. You keep wanting to make this an issue when it isn't part of the equation. First of all no homosexuals are being put to death, so this is a moot and irrelevant point.

I hope you realize where your political views have taken you. You have compared an innocent little baby who has done no wrong with people committing an act that God says is an abomination. My prayer is that you are still young enough to not be set in your ways and that you will see the despicability of this position. :think:

 

[PKevman]

They should lose statehood.

And, any US organization that so chooses no longer needs to work with them or protect them.

They essentially become their own mini country.

Goodbye United States of America.

 

[PKevman]

Kev, do you deny any of the following, and if so, why?

Let's see, they voted on this amendment in 1865, after the War of Northern Aggression.

Let's start there. What is the "War of Northern Agression." That's a revisionist title given to the Civil War. Your whole argument first rests upon that shaky ground!

 

[S†ephen]

Ok let's break this down for you again. You keep wanting to make this an issue when it isn't part of the equation. First of all no homosexuals are being put to death, so this is a moot and irrelevant point.

I hope you realize where your political views have taken you. You have compared an innocent little baby who has done no wrong with people committing an act that God says is an abomination. My prayer is that you are still young enough to not be set in your ways and that you will see the despicability of this position. :think:

False.

I am comparing one who has not committed murder to one who has not committed murder.

I pray God will open your eyes so you don't support such brutal slaughter.

All your debating is why we murder.

I'm simply saying we murder.

 

[drbrumley]

Goodbye United States of America.

Sorry Kev, we were not intended to be the Corporation hereafter known as the United States of America

 

[drbrumley]

Let's start there. What is the "War of Northern Agression." That's a revisionist title given to the Civil War.

That's my title, and it seems others have said so as well after studying. so it stands, now please answer the question posed. Thanks!

 

[PKevman]

Nice try...

Bob has lied himself silly. Ron is pro life limited by the Constitution.

If you and Bob wish to create your own little dictatorship go ahead. We saw what happened with Roe v Wade. You know what road an absolute law can lead to.

Stephen Dale. Nobody wants to "create a dictatorship". Why do you need to resort to misstating our position in the discussion?

And there were already states that had legalized abortion BEFORE Roe v. Wade. Do you realize that?

 

[Mr. 5020]

Stephen Dale.

Is that really his last name??

If so, why do you insist on using it on a public Internet forum?

 

[S†ephen]

Stephen Dale. Nobody wants to "create a dictatorship". Why do you need to resort to misstating our position in the discussion?

And there were already states that had legalized abortion BEFORE Roe v. Wade. Do you realize that?

You want one man to lay down the law and have little minions enforce it.

what would you call it?

 

[Ktoyou]

Let's start there. What is the "War of Northern Agression." That's a revisionist title given to the Civil War. Your whole argument first rests upon that shaky ground!

No it is not, that is what we called it in the South from the beginning of Lincoln’s call to arms.

It is often called ‘The War Between the States’, it was not actually a ‘civil war’ until we lost

 

[drbrumley]

Stephen Dale. Nobody wants to "create a dictatorship". Why do you need to resort to misstating our position in the discussion?

And there were already states that had legalized abortion BEFORE Roe v. Wade. Do you realize that?

Yes, thanks to the liberals who knew and wanted this in the federal system. Thereby forcing the decision upon others. Do you realize that?