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

WizardofOz

New member
It doesn't matter who investigates. According to you the feds would have nothing to say about it if the states decided murder was OK.

Quote me.

Quote:
Why would state police not prosecute people guilty of murder?
Because the state decided not to. That was already part of the hypothetical.
:liberals:
Yes. Why would a state decide to not prosecute murder?

So murder is a part of the feds job? According to the constitution?

States prosecute most murderers but they can be charged federally under certain circumstances.

Why can we suddenly not trust states to prosecute murder? Is that really your argument?
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
Corruption in Iowa.

Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Accused Of Bribing Iowa State Senator Kent Sorenson
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/ron-paul-kent-sorenson_n_3721551.html

I wonder what strain of weed they bribed him with?

:rolleyes:

More lies from Satanists that hate the thought of a Christian who actually believes in God and freedom coming to power.

Oh, and lest you misunderstand, I'm calling you AND Huff Po Satanists.

I think you underestimate these people.

I think putting everyone who has an abortion in one monolithic group like this is not a good idea. I mean, they're all murderers, I'm not saying you can't classify them all that way. But to say that all of them have an equal level of determination, and malice, when it comes to that decision, I don't think that's right.

Lest you misunderstand, I'm completely in favor of punishing abortion by death under the right conditions.

No, I don't believe that. If criminalization led to said crime not being committed we would have no murder in this country, or rape, or theft [except by the government], or any number of crimes.


I'm honestly not sure if criminalization would actually save any lives even if it was done Federally. That said, even if it wouldn't save lives, banning murder is still justified. So I believe abortion should be outlawed regardless of whether it actually saves any lives.

When I say I believe there should be a federal law I mean that there should be a mandate to follow the Constitution that states no persons should be deprived of life without due process. And as it now stands we may need an amendment to declare the preborn as persons in that regard. I do not mean the Federal Government should just pass a law.

I think its questionable that "Deprived of life without due process" applying to a civilian act is really the intent of that text. I always assumed, before you brought it up, that it was talking about execution by the State. That said, I do agree with you that anywhere calling itself part of America should have to protect the unborn. I just think you need a new amendment (which honestly won't happen, but I'd support it, assuming it wasn't worded in a manner that would undermine the possibility of secession) to enforce that. After that, they would have a choice either to do their duty, or secede from the US. Ideally they'd choose the former option, but either way...

And I also believe that it is up to the local government to prosecute crimes, not Congress. However, if a local government is perpetrating crimes against its citizens then I believe it is up to the next level up to go after them for it.

Personally I'd just threaten to kick them out of the Union, unless "local" was so local that it would be possible to deal with it without harming a single innocent person. So, it should be possible to fight against a pedophile for the protection of his kids, but it would not be permissible to go to war with New York to force them to protect the unborn (It would, however, after the amendment was passed, be acceptable to tell them to either pass laws protecting the unborn, or otherwise be kicked out of the United States, in which case any abortionists who did cross the border could be arrested.)

And the only time I advocate the Federal Government going after citizens committing crimes within a state is if the local either won't, or cannot [due to lack of manpower, for instance].


I don't think they ever truly can't. I mean, maybe very local levels, but I doubt there's any situation the state troopers truly can't handle.

Won't... well, as I said, talking specifically about abortion, ideally an amendment would be passed that would say that in order to remain part of the Union, you have to ban it. But I also realize that won't actually happen.
I agree with you to an extent. See above for clarification.

OK.

I don't believe we should disregard the Constitution. I think the Constitution needs an overhaul.

I don't think I have as much (or the same) problems with it as you do, but I don't agree with every single element of the US constitution. I do believe, however, that it should be enforced while it is the law of the land. Personally, I prefer the Articles of Confederation as a whole, and believe they should have been modified rather than discarded. Nonetheless, the Constitution is the law of the land now.

There are a number of out of state license plates.

I honestly didn't understand the comment.

I'm just asking how you would respond.

Also, I want to make it clear here, now that I understand a little more, I mean by way of the Constitution, as in recognizing the unborn as persons regarding the right to life.

OK. I'm not sure how to respond to this in particular, but I believe I defined my position well enough that you can understand it.

Government. Though that would mean companies would not be able to import from these countries.

I don't agree with that, but OK.

There would also be no borrowing from them.

Government shouldn't be allowed to borrow money. I see no good reason why they should. America should also default on its illegitimate debt rather than steal more money from the public to pay for it.


Which one?:eek:

Kidding.

I do not think it was necessary. I did, however, think Hussein should have been assassinated.

Why? I mean, if you're going to assassinate a tyrant, why not go after one of the worse ones, such as Kim Jong Il (I know he's dead now, he wasn't then.)

Personally, I don't think the US government should be assassinating tyrants, but I have no problem with anyone else doing so. Whether that be another government (Which, I would likely oppose if I were in that country, but since I'm not, I don't care) or a private civilian (Which might be a violation of Romans 13, although I'm not sure if there are exceptions to that, and besides, if the assassin isn't an Evangelical Christian, I don't care.)

Or you could tell me.

They were noninterventionists. I'll find you specific quotes, but its really late right now and I'm burning the midnight oil. I'll get back to this within the next couple days.

Yup.


All right, then, what have you done?

I have made the truth known with images; by holding signs, sharing them on social networking sites, etc. I have also voiced the truth with words such as I do here, on those same sites and person to person.

Just out of curiosity, what is the philosophical reason why it is per say wrong to assassinate abortionists? Why do people like Scott Roeder belong in jail?

I mean, I'm not advocating it, but didn't people like George Tiller pretty much get what they deserved for their crimes?

(This isn't directly a response to your quote, but this seemed the most appropriate place to ask.)

We understand why, we just think he's wrong to allow for states to keep it legal.

There are some details where I differ with Ron Paul on the issue. I don't support the Federal PBA ban, I think Ron Paul was a bit of a hypocrite on that. Not only does it barely do anything: it undermines the US constitution in order to barely do anything. Only the states have any authority to pass anti-abortion laws of any kind, barring a constitutional amendment. I know some of the harder core pro-lifers had a problem with the PBA ban for different reasons, so they might have common ground with me over Paul on that aspect.

That said, I do not support the right of the states to legalize abortion, I simply wouldn't use the Federal government to stop them from doing it. Kind of like how I don't think the US should have invaded Iraq, but that doesn't mean I support Saddam killing his own people.

I mean, do you understand the distinction between simply not stopping something (or disagreeing on how to stop it) and actually supporting a thing? Even if you disagree with me, do you understand the logic involved with the above paragraph?

Maybe you should read the rest of my post, and conversation, instead of taking things out of context.


I have redefined nothing. I grew up during the Cold War. That was not a war like the Iraq war. Do you understand that?

There were "Hot" wars involved in the Cold War. But yeah, I get your point. I just don't agree with having a Cold War essentially against the entire world.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
:liberals:
Yes. Why would a state decide to not prosecute murder?
We're speaking of abortion, and the Sanctity of Life Act allowed for states to make their own laws regarding abortion including allowances for not criminalizing it at all.

Why can we suddenly not trust states to prosecute murder? Is that really your argument?
If they don't classify it as murder they won't treat it as such.

I think putting everyone who has an abortion in one monolithic group like this is not a good idea. I mean, they're all murderers, I'm not saying you can't classify them all that way. But to say that all of them have an equal level of determination, and malice, when it comes to that decision, I don't think that's right.
Even if they do not how many babies do you really think it will save?

And don't forget about desperation.

However, I do believe it could lead to a reduction in women getting pregnant in the first place. But probably only a slight reduction.

Then there is the fact that if it is legal anywhere within the states people who want it to be legal in the state in which they live if it is not will be lobbying for it, and we could end up right back where we are because of the slippery slope which we will be going down when they make exceptions for rape and/or medical emergencies.

Lest you misunderstand, I'm completely in favor of punishing abortion by death under the right conditions.
I already understood that.

I'm honestly not sure if criminalization would actually save any lives even if it was done Federally. That said, even if it wouldn't save lives, banning murder is still justified. So I believe abortion should be outlawed regardless of whether it actually saves any lives.
:thumb:

I think its questionable that "Deprived of life without due process" applying to a civilian act is really the intent of that text. I always assumed, before you brought it up, that it was talking about execution by the State. That said, I do agree with you that anywhere calling itself part of America should have to protect the unborn. I just think you need a new amendment (which honestly won't happen, but I'd support it, assuming it wasn't worded in a manner that would undermine the possibility of secession) to enforce that. After that, they would have a choice either to do their duty, or secede from the US. Ideally they'd choose the former option, but either way...
So, would you agree with a personhood amendment to the US Constitution?

Also, what are your thoughts on the fact that said amendment could eventually be repealed? [See: prohibition]

Personally I'd just threaten to kick them out of the Union, unless "local" was so local that it would be possible to deal with it without harming a single innocent person. So, it should be possible to fight against a pedophile for the protection of his kids, but it would not be permissible to go to war with New York to force them to protect the unborn (It would, however, after the amendment was passed, be acceptable to tell them to either pass laws protecting the unborn, or otherwise be kicked out of the United States, in which case any abortionists who did cross the border could be arrested.)
Good.

I don't think they ever truly can't. I mean, maybe very local levels, but I doubt there's any situation the state troopers truly can't handle.
So, things like Waco or the FLDS you think State Troopers could have, and should have, handled those?

And so there is not misunderstanding, I do not know enough about those to make a judgment in that regard at this moment in time.

Also, do you oppose the idea of something like the FBI? As in, would you disband it if you had the power to run the government as you saw fit [hypothetically speaking, of course]?

Won't... well, as I said, talking specifically about abortion, ideally an amendment would be passed that would say that in order to remain part of the Union, you have to ban it. But I also realize that won't actually happen.
You never know. You could fight for it to happen and may be surprised.

Or the US will fall like Rome and somebody better could take over.

I don't think I have as much (or the same) problems with it as you do, but I don't agree with every single element of the US constitution. I do believe, however, that it should be enforced while it is the law of the land. Personally, I prefer the Articles of Confederation as a whole, and believe they should have been modified rather than discarded. Nonetheless, the Constitution is the law of the land now.
I understand that. Which is why I argue that if they are not going to fix it they should at least uphold it as it is and this means there are many things they cannot do, even things I want the government to do, without amendments.

I honestly didn't understand the comment.
I'm just pointing out that even now people are willing to cross state lines to get an abortion because of the regulations in their own states, or because the next available butcher coming to their locale will be there too late for them to do it legally.

OK. I'm not sure how to respond to this in particular, but I believe I defined my position well enough that you can understand it.
Yes, you have answered this with your responses above.

I don't agree with that, but OK.
That's what an embargo is, right?

Of course this wouldn't keep them from being able to send someone to pick stuff up, I suppose.

Government shouldn't be allowed to borrow money. I see no good reason why they should. America should also default on its illegitimate debt rather than steal more money from the public to pay for it.
I can almost agree with this, but the question remains, what would happen if we defaulted?

Why? I mean, if you're going to assassinate a tyrant, why not go after one of the worse ones, such as Kim Jong Il (I know he's dead now, he wasn't then.)
I didn't say he shouldn't have been. I also argued that he should have been, back when he was alive.

Personally, I don't think the US government should be assassinating tyrants, but I have no problem with anyone else doing so. Whether that be another government (Which, I would likely oppose if I were in that country, but since I'm not, I don't care) or a private civilian (Which might be a violation of Romans 13, although I'm not sure if there are exceptions to that, and besides, if the assassin isn't an Evangelical Christian, I don't care.)
What's wrong with Evangelical Christians killing those who deserve to die?

And I take this to mean you have no problem with what happened to Gadaffi... Am I correct?

They were noninterventionists. I'll find you specific quotes, but its really late right now and I'm burning the midnight oil. I'll get back to this within the next couple days.
OK.

Just out of curiosity, what is the philosophical reason why it is per say wrong to assassinate abortionists? Why do people like Scott Roeder belong in jail?
*cough* per se *cough*

If there is not an imminent or immediate threat to life, limb, property or liberty then no civilian should ever have the right to execute justice, in any manner. Also, in most cases wherein no person is being harmed or about to be the best course of action is to call the police and tell them everything you saw as long as there is an actual crime that they recognize as such.

So calling the police on an abortionist is not an option as it is not currently recognized as a crime.

That said, I see opposition from God against such vigilantism [no threat or harm in the moment] in the Bible, so even if cannot make sense of it at the time I still oppose it while I seek His wisdom for that stance on His part.

In such as this, however, it seems to me that God's stance is that if someone is unaware what they are doing is a crime because the government doesn't recognize it as a crime then they cannot justly be punished for it. Neither could they be punished retroactively if it becomes criminalized for doing it before such time.

I mean, I'm not advocating it, but didn't people like George Tiller pretty much get what they deserved for their crimes?
See above.

(This isn't directly a response to your quote, but this seemed the most appropriate place to ask.)
Well, it was directed toward aCW anyway, so I didn't expect a direct response from you.

There are some details where I differ with Ron Paul on the issue. I don't support the Federal PBA ban, I think Ron Paul was a bit of a hypocrite on that. Not only does it barely do anything: it undermines the US constitution in order to barely do anything. Only the states have any authority to pass anti-abortion laws of any kind, barring a constitutional amendment. I know some of the harder core pro-lifers had a problem with the PBA ban for different reasons, so they might have common ground with me over Paul on that aspect.
I certainly do. That ban saved absolutely no lives.

That said, I do not support the right of the states to legalize abortion, I simply wouldn't use the Federal government to stop them from doing it. Kind of like how I don't think the US should have invaded Iraq, but that doesn't mean I support Saddam killing his own people.
Why do you not support the federal government stepping in if the state does not criminalize that which is defined as a crime in the Constitution?

I mean, do you understand the distinction between simply not stopping something (or disagreeing on how to stop it) and actually supporting a thing? Even if you disagree with me, do you understand the logic involved with the above paragraph?
Yes. It is aCW who does not.

There were "Hot" wars involved in the Cold War. But yeah, I get your point. I just don't agree with having a Cold War essentially against the entire world.
Why not? Compromise on sin is sin.
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
We're speaking of abortion, and the Sanctity of Life Act allowed for states to make their own laws regarding abortion including allowances for not criminalizing it at all.

Not exactly. The Constitution already allows the states to decide. The Sanctity of Life Act kills the power of the godless courts to make abortion legal in every state. That's all it does.

And don't forget about desperation.

However, I do believe it could lead to a reduction in women getting pregnant in the first place. But probably only a slight reduction.

Again, some people are going to do it. I think some would reconsider.
Then there is the fact that if it is legal anywhere within the states people who want it to be legal in the state in which they live if it is not will be lobbying for it, and we could end up right back where we are because of the slippery slope which we will be going down when they make exceptions for rape and/or medical emergencies.

Yeah, unless you want to destroy the 1st amendment, people could lobby for legal abortion even if it was illegal in every state.

So, would you agree with a personhood amendment to the US Constitution?

Yes, assuming it was worded correctly (ie. in a manner that does not undermine the principles of secession or create a Federal abortion police.)
Also, what are your thoughts on the fact that said amendment could eventually be repealed? [See: prohibition]

The Constitution requires 3/4ths of the states to repeal an amendment. If that many people want to do something, they're going to do it whether they technically are allowed or not. Heck, you've already got gross violations of the Bill of Rights despite their not technically being repealed in the constitutional manner.

I don't really know what to say to this. Yeah, its possible, what's your point?

So, things like Waco or the FLDS you think State Troopers could have, and should have, handled those?

I think they should have been left alone. Although immoral, I see no reason polygamy should be legally regulated, particularly by the Federal Government. As for Waco, I honestly haven't researched the situation personally... I know what other people who I respect have said about it, but I honestly don't know personally, so I might be able to be convinced.

Also, do you oppose the idea of something like the FBI? As in, would you disband it if you had the power to run the government as you saw fit [hypothetically speaking, of course]?

Yes.

You never know. You could fight for it to happen and may be surprised.

Much like Ron Paul, I ultimately do support a human life amendment, but its not the only political issue I focus on either. That said, the tricky thing about abortion, particularly earlier term abortion: opposition to it requires a belief in human exceptionalism, which usually cannot exist in secular humanistic thinking. So honestly, I think we need to kill the public schools first before that would even be a possibility.

Or the US will fall like Rome and somebody better could take over.

The US is Rome, so it will likely fall in the same way. I doubt a better government will replace it, although, our opinions may differ somewhat with regards to what "better" government is. Although I certainly think yours would be better than what we have.
I understand that. Which is why I argue that if they are not going to fix it they should at least uphold it as it is and this means there are many things they cannot do, even things I want the government to do, without amendments.

Agreed.
I'm just pointing out that even now people are willing to cross state lines to get an abortion because of the regulations in their own states, or because the next available butcher coming to their locale will be there too late for them to do it legally.

Yep.

That's what an embargo is, right?

Of course this wouldn't keep them from being able to send someone to pick stuff up, I suppose.

I don't support embargoes.
I can almost agree with this, but the question remains, what would happen if we defaulted?

We would never be able to borrow again, which IMO is a good thing. I'm not totally sure what else. I doubt anyone would actually attack the US.

Our leaders have dug us a very deep pit, admittedly.

What's wrong with Evangelical Christians killing those who deserve to die?

I honestly haven't figured out an interpretation of Romans 13 with which I am completely comfortable yet, so I'm not sure.
And I take this to mean you have no problem with what happened to Gadaffi... Am I correct?

I honestly don't remember what happened. I do think it was wrong for the US to get involved in the rebellion in any way, but otherwise, I honestly don't care what happens over there... at least as a citizen of the United States rather than at a personal level.


*cough* per se *cough*

The NSA is probably watching. I don't want any viewing FBI agents or such thinking that I am actually advocating what would legally be considered the murder (*cough*) of abortion doctors. I am not.

In the theoretical realm, however, at least from a criminal justice perspective, I would say that it is impossible to truly murder a murderer (Only to execute such) and therefore I would pardon people who specifically targeted abortion doctors (Although, I'd still punish abortion clinic bombers because they also kill any innocent unborn children that may be in the clinic. Even if they're about to be aborted anyway, killing an innocent person that is about to be murdered by someone else is still murder.)

If there is not an imminent or immediate threat to life, limb, property or liberty then no civilian should ever have the right to execute justice, in any manner. Also, in most cases wherein no person is being harmed or about to be the best course of action is to call the police and tell them everything you saw as long as there is an actual crime that they recognize as such.

So calling the police on an abortionist is not an option as it is not currently recognized as a crime.

That said, I see opposition from God against such vigilantism [no threat or harm in the moment] in the Bible, so even if cannot make sense of it at the time I still oppose it while I seek His wisdom for that stance on His part.

In such as this, however, it seems to me that God's stance is that if someone is unaware what they are doing is a crime because the government doesn't recognize it as a crime then they cannot justly be punished for it. Neither could they be punished retroactively if it becomes criminalized for doing it before such time.

I agree with not punishing retroactively in most cases. I think the ex post facto provision of the US constitution should be amended to allow for ex post facto punishment in two cases: government officials who have committed treason against the constitution (By passing or voting for any laws which violate such, to be punished in proportion to how seriously their violation were) and abortion doctors, since they knew full well they were committing murder and did it anyway.

Of course, changing the laws in question is more important than punishing retroactively...

I certainly do. That ban saved absolutely no lives.

Funny that when I told a family member recently that I would have voted against that law (Since it was a Federal law) they tried to tell me I would be responsible for the people that died because of that decision...

I don't know the details about PBA bans and what they do. Personally, I'd probably vote for them at the state level because banning any abortion procedure, from a deontological perspective, is better than legalizing all of them. At least in that case, some murderers will be punished.

But its still a pathetic law, and one of the most pathetic excuses to destroy federalism and the US constitution that I have ever seen. It would be kind of like a law, in a country where infanticide is legal, to prohibit killing infants with a knife. Well, OK, I'd support that, seeing as that makes at least one method of killing babies illegal, but its still pathetic, the goal should be to ban baby killing period.
Why do you not support the federal government stepping in if the state does not criminalize that which is defined as a crime in the Constitution?

We disagree on our interpretation of the 14th amendment. I also would argue that the 14th was improperly ratified, but I'm willing to assume that this is not the case for the sake of argument.

Yes. It is aCW who does not.

I assumed so, I was just making sure.

aCW assumes I actually support every sin imagineable, including ones I have said should be illegal.
Why not? Compromise on sin is sin.

For curiosity, do you apply that to every sin, or only certain ones? For instance, would you embargo every country that didn't punish homosexuality by execution? Would you embargo every country that had liberal/libertarian drug laws? Countries that don't protect the right to own firearms? (This actually matters more than abortion does, freedom CANNOT be maintained in any fashion without firearms.) Exc?

Or only for abortion/murder?

As for my reason why not, because I believe that any attempt to control what another country does in its borders ultimately leads to war and ultimately one world government.
 

WizardofOz

New member
We're speaking of abortion, and the Sanctity of Life Act allowed for states to make their own laws regarding abortion including allowances for not criminalizing it at all.

No, it doesn't.
If they don't classify it as murder they won't treat it as such.

It won't be up to the states to classify.

‎"Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not." - Ron Paul

‎"I believe the federal government has a role to play. I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence." - Ron Paul


Spoiler
Even if they do not how many babies do you really think it will save?

And don't forget about desperation.

However, I do believe it could lead to a reduction in women getting pregnant in the first place. But probably only a slight reduction.

Then there is the fact that if it is legal anywhere within the states people who want it to be legal in the state in which they live if it is not will be lobbying for it, and we could end up right back where we are because of the slippery slope which we will be going down when they make exceptions for rape and/or medical emergencies.

I already understood that.

:thumb:

So, would you agree with a personhood amendment to the US Constitution?

Also, what are your thoughts on the fact that said amendment could eventually be repealed? [See: prohibition]

Good.

So, things like Waco or the FLDS you think State Troopers could have, and should have, handled those?

And so there is not misunderstanding, I do not know enough about those to make a judgment in that regard at this moment in time.

Also, do you oppose the idea of something like the FBI? As in, would you disband it if you had the power to run the government as you saw fit [hypothetically speaking, of course]?

You never know. You could fight for it to happen and may be surprised.

Or the US will fall like Rome and somebody better could take over.

I understand that. Which is why I argue that if they are not going to fix it they should at least uphold it as it is and this means there are many things they cannot do, even things I want the government to do, without amendments.

I'm just pointing out that even now people are willing to cross state lines to get an abortion because of the regulations in their own states, or because the next available butcher coming to their locale will be there too late for them to do it legally.

Yes, you have answered this with your responses above.

That's what an embargo is, right?

Of course this wouldn't keep them from being able to send someone to pick stuff up, I suppose.

I can almost agree with this, but the question remains, what would happen if we defaulted?

I didn't say he shouldn't have been. I also argued that he should have been, back when he was alive.

What's wrong with Evangelical Christians killing those who deserve to die?

And I take this to mean you have no problem with what happened to Gadaffi... Am I correct?

OK.

*cough* per se *cough*

If there is not an imminent or immediate threat to life, limb, property or liberty then no civilian should ever have the right to execute justice, in any manner. Also, in most cases wherein no person is being harmed or about to be the best course of action is to call the police and tell them everything you saw as long as there is an actual crime that they recognize as such.

So calling the police on an abortionist is not an option as it is not currently recognized as a crime.

That said, I see opposition from God against such vigilantism [no threat or harm in the moment] in the Bible, so even if cannot make sense of it at the time I still oppose it while I seek His wisdom for that stance on His part.

In such as this, however, it seems to me that God's stance is that if someone is unaware what they are doing is a crime because the government doesn't recognize it as a crime then they cannot justly be punished for it. Neither could they be punished retroactively if it becomes criminalized for doing it before such time.

See above.

Well, it was directed toward aCW anyway, so I didn't expect a direct response from you.

I certainly do. That ban saved absolutely no lives.

Why do you not support the federal government stepping in if the state does not criminalize that which is defined as a crime in the Constitution?

Yes. It is aCW who does not.

Why not? Compromise on sin is sin.
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
Wizard, either you're missing something here, or Ron Paul is. Either way, there's no reason, in reality, why a state could not simply define abortion as an act of self-defense.

I think that calling abortion self-defense is ridiculous, but then, that won't stop the pro-choice states anymore than the fact that calling the War in Iraq "defense" is ridiculous stops hardcore neo-conservatives from calling it so.

I think Lighthouse's accusation, despite the spin, is correct. Ron Paul, and the Constitution, leave the decision regarding what to do about abortion to each individual state. There's nothing in the sanctity of life act that would actually force any state to outlaw abortion.

Where Enyart, and I think Lighthouse, fall short is that they say that not intervening to stop a state from banning abortion is actually SUPPORTING that choice.

I don't believe any state has any right to legalize the killing of the unborn. But if they do, I don't believe the Federal Government should do anything to stop them from doing that, unless the Constitution is amended.

I believe that if you asked him, Ron Paul would say the same thing that I'm saying here.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Wizard, either you're missing something here, or Ron Paul is. Either way, there's no reason, in reality, why a state could not simply define abortion as an act of self-defense.

I think that calling abortion self-defense is ridiculous, but then, that won't stop the pro-choice states anymore than the fact that calling the War in Iraq "defense" is ridiculous stops hardcore neo-conservatives from calling it so.

I think Lighthouse's accusation, despite the spin, is correct. Ron Paul, and the Constitution, leave the decision regarding what to do about abortion to each individual state. There's nothing in the sanctity of life act that would actually force any state to outlaw abortion.

Where Enyart, and I think Lighthouse, fall short is that they say that not intervening to stop a state from banning abortion is actually SUPPORTING that choice.

I don't believe any state has any right to legalize the killing of the unborn. But if they do, I don't believe the Federal Government should do anything to stop them from doing that, unless the Constitution is amended.

I believe that if you asked him, Ron Paul would say the same thing that I'm saying here.

A second disagreement albeit very minor.

Wiz gave you what Ron said. I'm pretty sure that is clear from his own words, which I agree with, that is:

"Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not." - Ron Paul

‎"I believe the federal government has a role to play. I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence." - Ron Paul
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
A second disagreement albeit very minor.

I'm pretty sure we disagree on more than two issues, although I agree with you way more often than I don't.

Wiz gave you what Ron said. I'm pretty sure that is clear from his own words, which I agree with, that is:

If he actually supports banning abortion at the Federal level, he contradicts his own constitutional ideology on the issue. Which would be odd given his rhetoric on the issue, although I know its something he's compromised on before.

At the end of the day, regardless of what Ron Paul means by this, the 10th amendment is pretty darn clear that abortion should be dealt with purely at a State level. The whole point of the Sanctity of Life Act, as I understand it, was to get around Roe v Wade. So I completely support it, for that reason. But if Ron believes that the Sanctity of Life Act should be used to actually prevent a state from legalizing abortion, I would disagree with him.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Not exactly. The Constitution already allows the states to decide. The Sanctity of Life Act kills the power of the godless courts to make abortion legal in every state. That's all it does.
And that's the problem, re: the Constitution.

Again, some people are going to do it. I think some would reconsider.
Maybe. But how many?

Yeah, unless you want to destroy the 1st amendment, people could lobby for legal abortion even if it was illegal in every state.
And if it is legal in any state we are more likely to get compromises. We got them when it wasn't legal in any state, so what do you expect to happen if it's not illegal all over?

Yes, assuming it was worded correctly (ie. in a manner that does not undermine the principles of secession or create a Federal abortion police.)
Would you be OK if it allowed for the federal government to force secession of any state that doesn't criminalize it?

The Constitution requires 3/4ths of the states to repeal an amendment. If that many people want to do something, they're going to do it whether they technically are allowed or not. Heck, you've already got gross violations of the Bill of Rights despite their not technically being repealed in the constitutional manner.
And this is part of my point.

I don't really know what to say to this. Yeah, its possible, what's your point?
The current US Constitution is a bad document as it can be amended in such a manner.

I think they should have been left alone. Although immoral, I see no reason polygamy should be legally regulated, particularly by the Federal Government. As for Waco, I honestly haven't researched the situation personally... I know what other people who I respect have said about it, but I honestly don't know personally, so I might be able to be convinced.
In both cases children were being molested and raped. It wasn't the polyamory labeled as polygamy by the FLDS that brought the feds down on them.

Why? What if a criminal was crossing state lines to commit several crimes? Who then has jurisdiction?

Much like Ron Paul, I ultimately do support a human life amendment, but its not the only political issue I focus on either. That said, the tricky thing about abortion, particularly earlier term abortion: opposition to it requires a belief in human exceptionalism, which usually cannot exist in secular humanistic thinking. So honestly, I think we need to kill the public schools first before that would even be a possibility.
You could be right.

The US is Rome, so it will likely fall in the same way. I doubt a better government will replace it, although, our opinions may differ somewhat with regards to what "better" government is. Although I certainly think yours would be better than what we have.
I agree.

I don't support embargoes.
Why not?

We would never be able to borrow again, which IMO is a good thing. I'm not totally sure what else. I doubt anyone would actually attack the US.

Our leaders have dug us a very deep pit, admittedly.
So they wouldn't take us over as some fear China will eventually do?

I honestly haven't figured out an interpretation of Romans 13 with which I am completely comfortable yet, so I'm not sure.
Do you believe it is a prescription for how God desires a government to operate?

I honestly don't remember what happened. I do think it was wrong for the US to get involved in the rebellion in any way, but otherwise, I honestly don't care what happens over there... at least as a citizen of the United States rather than at a personal level.
He was assassinated by his own people.

Do you think the US should ignore religious persecution in other countries? What if our allies are being attacked?

The NSA is probably watching. I don't want any viewing FBI agents or such thinking that I am actually advocating what would legally be considered the murder (*cough*) of abortion doctors. I am not.
And neither am I. I do advocate their execution at the hands of law enforcement, though. But only if they commit said murder of the unborn after it is declared as murder in the legal sense with the recognition of the unborn as persons.

In the theoretical realm, however, at least from a criminal justice perspective, I would say that it is impossible to truly murder a murderer (Only to execute such) and therefore I would pardon people who specifically targeted abortion doctors (Although, I'd still punish abortion clinic bombers because they also kill any innocent unborn children that may be in the clinic. Even if they're about to be aborted anyway, killing an innocent person that is about to be murdered by someone else is still murder.)
In the event the law regarding abortion is as we agree it should be I do not believe it would even then be OK for a civilian to take the law into their own hands by killing those who deserve to be executed when there is no present threat.

I agree with not punishing retroactively in most cases. I think the ex post facto provision of the US constitution should be amended to allow for ex post facto punishment in two cases: government officials who have committed treason against the constitution (By passing or voting for any laws which violate such, to be punished in proportion to how seriously their violation were) and abortion doctors, since they knew full well they were committing murder and did it anyway.
I would say the former is not retroactive as they were violating the Constitution which is always illegal.

I think the butchers should be put under surveillance and the next time they attempt to do it again they should be arrested, prosecuted and then executed.

Of course, changing the laws in question is more important than punishing retroactively...
OK

Funny that when I told a family member recently that I would have voted against that law (Since it was a Federal law) they tried to tell me I would be responsible for the people that died because of that decision...

I don't know the details about PBA bans and what they do. Personally, I'd probably vote for them at the state level because banning any abortion procedure, from a deontological perspective, is better than legalizing all of them. At least in that case, some murderers will be punished.

But its still a pathetic law, and one of the most pathetic excuses to destroy federalism and the US constitution that I have ever seen. It would be kind of like a law, in a country where infanticide is legal, to prohibit killing infants with a knife. Well, OK, I'd support that, seeing as that makes at least one method of killing babies illegal, but its still pathetic, the goal should be to ban baby killing period.
Banning one way to kill doesn't save any lives. If you banned knives then they would use guns to kill the same exact number, possibly more out of spite.

Banning methods is pointless, at any level.

We disagree on our interpretation of the 14th amendment. I also would argue that the 14th was improperly ratified, but I'm willing to assume that this is not the case for the sake of argument.
How is our interpretation different?

For curiosity, do you apply that to every sin, or only certain ones? For instance, would you embargo every country that didn't punish homosexuality by execution? Would you embargo every country that had liberal/libertarian drug laws? Countries that don't protect the right to own firearms? (This actually matters more than abortion does, freedom CANNOT be maintained in any fashion without firearms.) Exc*?
I'm still unsure where exactly I stand on drug laws, even in our own land. But the rest of them, I know I would apply it across the board.

Speaking of drugs, I definitely believe that all that are not naturally occurring should be banned unless they are helpful medicinally, and those I would ban from recreational use and abuse. Which is where I pretty much stand on things like weed.

*Etc.

As for my reason why not, because I believe that any attempt to control what another country does in its borders ultimately leads to war and ultimately one world government.
If they declare war on us then let them.

Yes it does:
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.


  • (a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation


  • `Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

    • `(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

    • `(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

      • `(A) the performance of abortions; or

      • `(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.

  • (b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

    • `1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'.[/quote]
Do you understand what you're reading?

It won't be up to the states to classify.
See above.


"Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not." - Ron Paul

‎"I believe the federal government has a role to play. I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence." - Ron Paul

It works better if you use the "box" code for quotes to support your argument, so they show up automatically when people quote you in order to respond.

The SoLA still provides for states to keep abortion legal.

Wizard, either you're missing something here, or Ron Paul is. Either way, there's no reason, in reality, why a state could not simply define abortion as an act of self-defense.

I think that calling abortion self-defense is ridiculous, but then, that won't stop the pro-choice states anymore than the fact that calling the War in Iraq "defense" is ridiculous stops hardcore neo-conservatives from calling it so.

I think Lighthouse's accusation, despite the spin, is correct. Ron Paul, and the Constitution, leave the decision regarding what to do about abortion to each individual state. There's nothing in the sanctity of life act that would actually force any state to outlaw abortion.
Exactly.

Where Enyart, and I think Lighthouse, fall short is that they say that not intervening to stop a state from banning abortion is actually SUPPORTING that choice.

I don't believe any state has any right to legalize the killing of the unborn. But if they do, I don't believe the Federal Government should do anything to stop them from doing that, unless the Constitution is amended.

I believe that if you asked him, Ron Paul would say the same thing that I'm saying here.
What about the forcing of secession?
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
LH- I don't have time to address the rest of your post right now (But I will soon.) But I did want to address this one part:

Would you be OK if it allowed for the federal government to force secession of any state that doesn't criminalize it?

That's exactly what I want, actually. I don't really want a law that authorizes the Federal government to use force to force a state to pass any particular law, and I really, really don't want a Federal abortion police (Which is by the same line of thinking that I oppose the FBI in general). I'm not saying I definitely wouldn't vote for an imperfect pro-life amendment, it would depend on the details, however, what you describe above is exactly what I would want the pro-life amendment would be worded.

However, I would still leave the penalty up to the states (Within any semblance of reason) although I would support the death penalty in my state (Fat chance of that in NY, but you get my point) for abortion in cases where guilt is 99.99% certain (Semi-arbitrary number, and I might adjust it slightly, but my point is that there should be an exceptionally low degree of uncertainty in any capital case.)
 

WizardofOz

New member
Wizard, either you're missing something here, or Ron Paul is.

:rolleyes: False dichotomy.

Perhaps you may be the one....:p

Either way, there's no reason, in reality, why a state could not simply define abortion as an act of self-defense.
:nono:
No, no, no.

Once the unborn are recognized as legal "persons" a state could not do this. The only way it would be possible for such a defense is if the life of the mother was in clear and immediate peril in which a medical professional as an expert witness could attest to the medical necessity of the abortion.

However, like Dr. Paul said, when delivering babies there are two patients and you do whatever can be done to save both. You do not purposely kill one to save the other.

I think that calling abortion self-defense is ridiculous, but then, that won't stop the pro-choice states anymore than the fact that calling the War in Iraq "defense" is ridiculous stops hardcore neo-conservatives from calling it so.

I think Lighthouse's accusation, despite the spin, is correct. Ron Paul, and the Constitution, leave the decision regarding what to do about abortion to each individual state. There's nothing in the sanctity of life act that would actually force any state to outlaw abortion.

Where Enyart, and I think Lighthouse, fall short is that they say that not intervening to stop a state from banning abortion is actually SUPPORTING that choice.

I don't believe any state has any right to legalize the killing of the unborn. But if they do, I don't believe the Federal Government should do anything to stop them from doing that, unless the Constitution is amended.

I believe that if you asked him, Ron Paul would say the same thing that I'm saying here.

drb addressed this exactly how I would have, by quoting Dr. Paul's own words on the issue and what I believe was his overall strategy.


"Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not." - Ron Paul



The Sanctity of Life Act would define "person" (as found in the US Constitution) "as any human life from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency".

Once "person" is defined as such, legally speaking, defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder.

He was always very subtle but in effect, this would have been the end result had his legislation passed.

Also, look at here and here for other versions of the bill.

I think you've missed the subtle genius that Ron Paul was trying to push through. I always felt that he didn't loudly advertise it because of the backlash that would have come out. But yes, I am completely convinced that if SoLA were to pass, states must protect the unborn.

If he actually supports banning abortion at the Federal level, he contradicts his own constitutional ideology on the issue.

You're missing his subtle craftiness. He's not banning abortion at the federal level. He's federally declaring that the unborn are people. The states would then be mandated to ban abortion.

This is a subtle but distinct difference.

Which would be odd given his rhetoric on the issue, although I know its something he's compromised on before.

Like with the partial birth abortion ban....what was his rationalization again? Ah yes:

"Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good."

At the end of the day, regardless of what Ron Paul means by this, the 10th amendment is pretty darn clear that abortion should be dealt with purely at a State level.

And, it would be
With a federal mandate of course ;)

The whole point of the Sanctity of Life Act, as I understand it, was to get around Roe v Wade.

That is part 2 of a 2 part bill.

So I completely support it, for that reason. But if Ron believes that the Sanctity of Life Act should be used to actually prevent a state from legalizing abortion, I would disagree with him.

How can a state allow the elective death of a legal "person"? :think:
 

WizardofOz

New member
Like Terri Schiavo?
:idunno:

Good point but it's another can of worms altogether. Abortion is unnatural death. Terri Schiavo was simply allowed to naturally die. Without current medical technology she would have died long before she did. If we let nature take its course the outcomes for Schiavo and the unborn are polar opposites.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Quote me.
I thought you were defending Ron Paul who said:
The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.


It isn't twisted logic. Supporting a mere minimization (i.e. a twenty week ban) is supporting abortion for every child less than 20 weeks old.

:liberals:
Yes. Why would a state decide to not prosecute murder?
Because they find the people they want to murder inconvenient. For a state to follow an enlightened country like Denmark wouldn't be too bad would it? Especially after the costs of Obamacare kick in.

States prosecute most murderers but they can be charged federally under certain circumstances.

Why can we suddenly not trust states to prosecute murder? Is that really your argument?
Because there are states that prey on the weak already. The point is that life should be defended at the highest level of government. Actually life, liberty, and property should be defended at the highest level. And any turning to the right or left by any state against that principle should be met with the kind of immediate action of a state violating the countries constitution.
 
Last edited:

WizardofOz

New member
I thought you were defending Ron Paul who said:
The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.


It isn't twisted logic. Supporting a mere minimization (i.e. a twenty week ban) is supporting abortion for every child less than 20 weeks old.[/quote
Yes, it is. He does not support[/u] the legalization of abortion by the states. To say he supports abortion in any capacity is a pathetic mischaracterization.


His position does allow states to ban or minimize abortion. There will always be abortion (the woman will die unless an abortion is performed) so to say minimize is simply being honest.

How would you or your candidate eliminate all abortion? Most likely, your best strategy would also only minimize them despite your best intentions.

Because there are states that prey on the week already. The point is that life should be defended at the highest level of government. Actually life, liberty, and property should be defended at the highest level. And any turning to the right or left by any state against that principle should be met with the kind of immediate action of a state violating the countries constitution.

If the Sanctity of Life Act were to pass, life would be defended at the highest (federal) level of government but would be enforced by the states :idea: just like murder is now. Should states stop enforcing laws against murder?

Paul's version of the SoLA was a two-pronged approach. You're only focusing on one aspect. If federal legislation passes stating that the unborn are "persons", what higher level of government would you like to see involved beyond that?

Paul knows that as long as abortion is in federal control no state can ban it outright.

What's your strategy?
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
LH- I don't have time to address the rest of your post right now (But I will soon.) But I did want to address this one part:

That's exactly what I want, actually. I don't really want a law that authorizes the Federal government to use force to force a state to pass any particular law, and I really, really don't want a Federal abortion police (Which is by the same line of thinking that I oppose the FBI in general). I'm not saying I definitely wouldn't vote for an imperfect pro-life amendment, it would depend on the details, however, what you describe above is exactly what I would want the pro-life amendment would be worded.

However, I would still leave the penalty up to the states (Within any semblance of reason) although I would support the death penalty in my state (Fat chance of that in NY, but you get my point) for abortion in cases where guilt is 99.99% certain (Semi-arbitrary number, and I might adjust it slightly, but my point is that there should be an exceptionally low degree of uncertainty in any capital case.)
OK
 

genuineoriginal

New member
His position does allow states to ban or minimize abortion.

Paul knows that as long as abortion is in federal control no state can ban it outright.
Exactly.
That is why Ron Paul is right on this.
Bob Enyart means well, but he is mistaken.

We need to ability to ban abortion in our neighborhoods, our cities, our counties, and our states. The wicked will be wicked regardless of what we do, but if they are going to murder their babies they can go somewhere else because they are not welcome in my neighborhood.

Unfortunately, keeping abortion at the Federal level means that abortion cannot be banned in my neighborhood.
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
:rolleyes: False dichotomy.

Perhaps you may be the one....:p

Very true.
:nono:
No, no, no.

Once the unborn are recognized as legal "persons" a state could not do this. The only way it would be possible for such a defense is if the life of the mother was in clear and immediate peril in which a medical professional as an expert witness could attest to the medical necessity of the abortion.

However, like Dr. Paul said, when delivering babies there are two patients and you do whatever can be done to save both. You do not purposely kill one to save the other.



drb addressed this exactly how I would have, by quoting Dr. Paul's own words on the issue and what I believe was his overall strategy.


"Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not." - Ron Paul



The Sanctity of Life Act would define "person" (as found in the US Constitution) "as any human life from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency".

Once "person" is defined as such, legally speaking, defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder.

He was always very subtle but in effect, this would have been the end result had his legislation passed.

Also, look at here and here for other versions of the bill.

I think you've missed the subtle genius that Ron Paul was trying to push through. I always felt that he didn't loudly advertise it because of the backlash that would have come out. But yes, I am completely convinced that if SoLA were to pass, states must protect the unborn.



You're missing his subtle craftiness. He's not banning abortion at the federal level. He's federally declaring that the unborn are people. The states would then be mandated to ban abortion.

This is a subtle but distinct difference.



Like with the partial birth abortion ban....what was his rationalization again? Ah yes:

"Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good."



And, it would be
With a federal mandate of course ;)



That is part 2 of a 2 part bill.



How can a state allow the elective death of a legal "person"? :think:

His position does allow states to ban or minimize abortion. There will always be abortion (the woman will die unless an abortion is performed) so to say minimize is simply being honest.

How would you or your candidate eliminate all abortion? Most likely, your best strategy would also only minimize them despite your best intentions.



If the Sanctity of Life Act were to pass, life would be defended at the highest (federal) level of government but would be enforced by the states :idea: just like murder is now. Should states stop enforcing laws against murder?

Paul's version of the SoLA was a two-pronged approach. You're only focusing on one aspect. If federal legislation passes stating that the unborn are "persons", what higher level of government would you like to see involved beyond that?

Paul knows that as long as abortion is in federal control no state can ban it outright.

Its odd seeing as Ron Paul was the one who convinced me that a Federal ban was unconstitutional in the first place.

That said, it is indeed the case that a state could declare an abortion to be self-defense even if the unborn were Federally defined as persons.
 

WizardofOz

New member
Its odd seeing as Ron Paul was the one who convinced me that a Federal ban was unconstitutional in the first place.

That's just it. He really isn't suggesting a federal ban per se. There is a subtle but distinct difference between a federal ban and federal legislation declaring the unborn as "persons". The Act itself doesn't ban abortion but the implications would create a federal mandate that the states would have to enforce.

Dude is a genius if you can wrap your head around what he was trying to do. He was trying to get the best of both worlds by removing federal jurisdiction, thereby nullifying Roe V Wade, while creating federal legislation that grants all humans, including the unborn) legal personhood.

That said, it is indeed the case that a state could declare an abortion to be self-defense even if the unborn were Federally defined as persons.

I do not at all agree. One would have to prove that self-defense was actually required to save a life. Legal elective abortion would effectively cease.

What case could someone make for a self-defense claim for an elective abortion? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
 
Top