CRASH
TOL Subscriber
Sure it can. But a state shouldn't be able to make it legal; A point you continually conveniently overlook.
Ron Paul is pro-choice on abortion, state by state
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
Sure it can. But a state shouldn't be able to make it legal; A point you continually conveniently overlook.
Considering your claim runs counter to the man's record and what he's actually said in the past, I'll chalk this up to you being very misinformed.
wholearmor
Member
He would give each state the choice, would he not?
Sure it can. But a state shouldn't be able to make it legal; A point you continually conveniently overlook.
Well states are, which is the way it should be. Tough. You don't like this, move to another country, buddy. (See how obnoxious that argument is?):chuckle:
Ignoring how your country was built and founded may be convenient but I prefer to live in reality, not in some fictional The Way It Should Be. Try it sometime! You may also like to get better informed about your country's history.
P.S. Love the avatar.
As president it's no one's right to "give," it's the way it actually is. This is not a federal issue, nor should it be.
Gotta get some shut eye now, have a pleasant evening.
wholearmor
Member
Yes, it is a federal issue as the 14th Amendment states, in part: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life," The Constitution of the United States is about as federal as it gets.
It's about time you gave the arrogance a rest.
wholearmor
Member
:chuckle:
WizardofOz
New member
This is the root of the problem. Ignorance.
Everyone on this board who agrees with Enyart backs a federal system; the same federal system that legalized abortion for every state in 1973.
You are supporting the pro-choice system with the faint hope of it reversing its own precedent. I would think you would be the types fighting the hardest to get this issue out of the hands of the pro-choice federal system.
You support a pro-choice system; should I start a thread about it?
Bob Enyart supports a pro-choice system. Does his medicine taste bad? Yes. This is the nature of intellectually dishonest political spin.
wholearmor
Member
I would just like to see the federal system enforce, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life," written in the 14th Amendment. Ron Paul is apparently unfamiliar with it.
elected4ever
New member
Get your head out of the sand and address the solution. It is just hard for me to to accept your politics as usual when you have been failing for over 30 years with your approach. Thank God I wont live another 30 years to witness your 60 years of failure. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome. How many times must you be led down the prim rose path before you finally recognize the truth. What is really sad is that you don't know that you have been had and will continue to be had by the lies of the leadership of the Right to Life movement. That is just a political scam.
WizardofOz
New member
Either that or you can't wrap your head around the genius that is his long-term strategy to end abortion.
wholearmor
Member
The majority of the "Right to Life" movement is a joke. They haven't offered anything that will end abortion once and for all. And neither has Ron Paul. The 14th amendment to the Constitution, as well as the 5th, say that no state has the right to deprive anyone of life without due process. And the preamble states that our posterity is protected, and that all men are created equal. Constitutionally no one has the right to kill an innocent person. No one. The Constitution does not allow for the separation of born and unborn. It protects the created. Period.
wholearmor
Member
How about a short-term strategy, genius?
Section 5 authorizes Congress to enforce the article but, since legislative proposals to abortion are rarely considered to be viable by pro-lifers these days, that seems to be almost a moot point. Plus it's debatable that the amendment gives the president any authority whatsoever to step into this issue (to say nothing of the fact that even if a state were to define an unborn child as a "person" the argument would shift to whether or not abortions violate the concept of due process or the rights of the mother). If anything you may be able to make a case that a congressional solution to abortion could be presented--and even that's thin--but this nonsense about "the president ending abortion" is so much pablum.
You know you guys are becoming and sounding more and more like big government liberals as time goes on: when in doubt, have the government fix a problem for you.
Uh, what? The problem we have started with federal intervention, and you think it's a good idea to have the feds solve it? What possible sense does that make?
CRASH
TOL Subscriber
No it started in Colorado in 1967 when our state passed the first permissive abortion law in the country.
It makes sense because the feds can abolish all abortion in one fell swoop. All of it. And whether you guys want to admit it or not, they have the authority to do it from the constitution.
Then Colorado should have fought back right then. Responsibility lies within the state and the people to check such things.
Remember that even if the feds abolished abortion in one sweeping measure it would just take one more sweeping measure to reverse it. And I don't think a persuasive case can be made for federal authority on this issue.