Thanks Bob

[Jefferson]

the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

Under Ron Paul's bill each state has the authority to protect lives of unborn children. But the bill does not require the states to exercise that authority.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Under Ron Paul's bill each state has the authority to protect lives of unborn children. But the bill does not require the states to exercise that authority.

That's right. We would be where we were prior to 1973 when states could protect life and abortion was illegal because the Constitution already protects the life of the unborn in at least the fifth amendment. Although there would be one important difference: the courts no longer would have jurisdiction to legalize abortion by fiat. And we all know that human rights trump State's rights, there for the law of the land would be outlawed abortion.

 

[PKevman]

That's right. We would be where we were prior to 1973 when states could protect life and abortion was illegal because the Constitution already protects the life of the unborn in at least the fifth amendment. Although there would be one important difference: the courts no longer would have jurisdiction to legalize abortion by fiat. And we all know that human rights trump State's rights, there for the law of the land would be outlawed abortion.

So can you say 100% certain that every state would choose to protect the life of the unborn? What proof can you possibly offer of this, when most states take a pro-choice stance? And the question that has been asked repeatedly (and thus far the answers are lacking):

What happens to the states that refuse to protect the life of the unborn and continue to allow abortions to take place within their borders?

Who has the authority to change it? Ron Paul won't, and that in fact makes him pro-choice state by state in my opinion. Or is it your position that IF states refuse to protect the life of the unborn, Ron Paul will then force them to do so?

 

[S†ephen]

So can you say 100% certain that every state would choose to protect the life of the unborn?

They already agreed to over 250 years ago. Read the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

What happens to the states that refuse to protect the life of the unborn and continue to allow abortions to take place within their borders?

Then that sate will be in violation of its Constitutional agreement and has the right to separate from the union of the United States.

Who has the authority to change it? Ron Paul won't,

That's a good thing. Since the Constitution already did the job for him.

and that in fact makes him pro-choice

Ron Paul specifically said in a debate in New Hampshire that he was against aggression and NO he did not support abortion.:singer: I will try to post the video here soon.

Or is it your position that IF states refuse to protect the life of the unborn, Ron Paul will then force them to do so?

The choice has already been made,:bang: it is against the law to abort an unborn. It's the perversion of our governing system that has allowed that law to be violated. The goal here is not to use a bad system for a good thing.:devil: It is to return a decent system back to the way it was and correct A LOT of good things, including abortion.:baby:

 

[Lighthouse]

There is no such law in the pipeline aside from H.R. 2597.

So it's not possible for one to come along?:squint:

You are incorrect again
H.R. 2597 Sec 2.(b.)(2.) and this is in the findings and declaration of the bill prior to the restricting of the courts.

What does it say?

They need the ability to outlaw it again first. You are banking on a guess that any states would turn around and legalize abortion. You are also guessing that the federal government will one day come to the point that it will recognize the right of the unborn and then some president, Giuliani, H. Clinton, Keyes, Paul or whomever will enforce it. If we ever get there I believe Paul and Keyes would use that authority (actually, if he had that kind of authority I feel confident Paul would based on 30 years of statements and legislation. Keyes has nowhere near the amount of readily available recorded history for me to feel as good about, although he talks right and has pledged it.) Until then the Supreme Court's decision must be legislatively "vetoed" via H.R. 2597 type law. It will save unborn babies lives sooner than later and you can still wait for the federal government to change it's mind as you are trusting it to do. Besides after a bill like H.R. 2597 at least I would have states I could chose to move to if mine were to decide to legalize abortion.

How would that bill make all states ban abortion to begin with?

Forgot to address this and it is important to point out. We already have "pro-life Justices" and even Bob Enyart has pointed out that these judges are willing to decide abortion wrong again. As for a bill banning abortion that Keyes could enforce, we can only hope and pressure the Representatives but there has been no legislative will outside of Ron Paul's bills and the supporters of them to do anything. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban, as Bob has correctly pointed out, definitely does not count.

I'm not arguing this. I'm merely saying that a bill outlawing it at the federal level is better than one allowing states to decide whether to outlaw it or not.

 

[PKevman]

They already agreed to over 250 years ago.

250 years ago millions upon millions of women weren't killing their babies. The women's lib movement wasn't around, and nobody was screaming about a "Woman's right to choose". The times have changed, and our country is immoral and ungodly today.

 

[S†ephen]

250 years ago millions upon millions of women weren't killing their babies. The women's lib movement wasn't around, and nobody was screaming about a "Woman's right to choose". The times have changed, and our country is immoral and ungodly today.

Which is why the founders put the 14th amendment in. Besides, the only thing our immorality has changed is our government and that's been for the worse. 250 years ago was better and more godly than now which is why we need to go back to it.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

So can you say 100% certain that every state would choose to protect the life of the unborn? What proof can you possibly offer of this, when most states take a pro-choice stance? And the question that has been asked repeatedly (and thus far the answers are lacking):

What happens to the states that refuse to protect the life of the unborn and continue to allow abortions to take place within their borders?

Who has the authority to change it? Ron Paul won't, and that in fact makes him pro-choice state by state in my opinion. Or is it your position that IF states refuse to protect the life of the unborn, Ron Paul will then force them to do so?

100% certainty? You try to make your case with something no one can fulfill but God himself? I cannot say such a thing just as you nor anyone else can say with "100% certainty" that the federal government, to include any single president (if given such authority, which as of right now does not exist) could or would force any supposed abortion state to stop. What proof can you offer to the contrary? Or more importantly, what proof can you offer that the federal government can properly decide, implement and enforce it? There is definitely no historical basis for this. Especially a single executive. Where has this idea come from? That is the real question.

And where is your 100% proof that "most states take a pro-choice stance"? You are kidding right? I think you are confusing what states are forced to be under the current fiat law. We can't even begin to know until states have a chance to outlaw it again. At least if they had the chance, we could take our debate here into the state legislatures and unite our voices to solidify the protection of the unborn. As it stands now, Christians' voice in the matter has been reduced to forums like this and a silent sidewalk protest one hour a year.

The one fact you can be sure of is the fact that the federal Supreme Court has legalized abortion when it previously was illegal. That is real life history and where we are, not a "what if". That is the only fact you can be assure of when considering this debate (besides the fact that God is in control). All else is speculation. You can not continue to use guesses and expect to get through to anyone. That is exactly what "what if one state choses to re-legalize abortion" is, a guess. States do not have the ability to chose to outlaw it now and it's as much a guess as whether a state will enforce the right to life, once they have that option, of course. But they at least need the ability to do so returned to them.

The other fact that is ignored is that the founding fathers had the God given wisdom to relegate most authority to the States because that is where all issues can be best influenced by the people, as they should be in a representative republic. I know that many see this fact as a weakness in the founding documents but I thank the Lord for it, as it is the system of government that has made for the freest people in history to the benefit of the spreading of the gospel, among other things.

We Christians can theorize all day long on what "our man" would do if the Constitution actually said "Human life begins at fertilization, conception or otherwise" (I don't believe it needs those words by the way, right to life is there). It matters not in our system of checks and balances especially with the agendas of men always tinkering and twisting their authority. Those abuses are bigger and stronger in the federal government, affect all people in every state and are nearly impossible to influence or change there as well, as we see with Roe v. Wade. Thus the original purpose of the constitution, to limit federal power. To pretend that a man-made theocratic enforcement state of some kind can be birthed out of our republic and then handled properly by the very powers that have proven throughout history to the contrary is naive at best. Believe it or not, good intentions (or at least pretexts) have birthed many evil regimes. The common denominator has always been man. the Supreme Court must be put back in it's place in terms of abortion and then the murdering can be stopped. If our system matters not in this debate, what is everyone waiting for?

 

[S†ephen]

'm not arguing this. I'm merely saying that a bill outlawing it at the federal level is better than one allowing states to decide whether to outlaw it or not.

First: Realize what you're saying. You are putting life and death power into a massive central government with power over 50 states and 302,715,000 people (2007 official estimate) and hoping they do good with it.

Second: Read the Constitution. The 14th amendment already bans abortion and the states have already agreed to follow it.

Third: The only reason the 14th amendment has been violated is because a massive amount of power has been given to the Federal government. They are the ones who violated the amendment.

 

[elected4ever]

Second: Read the Constitution. The 14th amendment already bans abortion and the states have already agreed to follow it.

I wish that were so Stephen but it just isn't. Due process is only afforded to those who are born, not the unborn. The unborn are considered a part of the mother's body for all legal considerations. The court did not overstep its bounds. To continue to perpetuate the myth that Row v wade was new law prescribed by the court only leads to certain defeat. We must extent due process to the unborn also. That way all states must start with an unborn person having the right to life and afforded due process the same as the rest of us who are born.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

So it's not possible for one to come along?:squint:

The closest thing has been Ron Paul's anti-abortion legislation and a few states that have tried to pass their own laws to ignore Roe v. Wade but stopped or overturned. South Dakota's 2006 law comes to mind, but again that was a state. So there is a part missing in the Alan Keyes puzzle. The federal bill outlawing abortion. You would still need legislation (like H.R. 2597) to reverse of over rule Roe and one to actually outlaw abortion. We have yet to see anything like the latter except, again, at the state level.

What does it say?

"the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State."
And no it forces no state to do anything at all, the bill is to end the current abortion mandate forced on states and to restrict the Supreme Court from changing it back.

How would that bill make all states ban abortion to begin with?

It makes the federal government, the current promoter of abortions and the current abortion mandate, get out of the life defining business as it relates to unborn humans.

I'm not arguing this. I'm merely saying that a bill outlawing it at the federal level is better than one allowing states to decide whether to outlaw it or not.

Well you listed two things that you said we would "see" under Alan Keyes and the Judges are the only thing you were acurate about. So I pointed out the ineffectiveness of "pro-life judges" to rule against abortion and President Keyes would have no control over a bill banning abortion, just the power to strike one down by veto, which I know he would not do.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

I wish that were so Stephen but it just isn't. Due process is only afforded to those who are born, not the unborn. The unborn are considered a part of the mother's body for all legal considerations. The court did not overstep its bounds. To continue to perpetuate the myth that Row v wade was new law prescribed by the court only leads to certain defeat. We must extent due process to the unborn also. That way all states must start with an unborn person having the right to life and afforded due process the same as the rest of us who are born.

This is not true either. The Supreme Court hijacked the Fourteenth Amendment and have abused it for more than just abortion cases, like school prayer and homosexual rights (group rights). To suggest that "liberty" could refer to two contradictory meanings in the Fifth and the Fourteenth amendments is absurd. The "liberty" in the Fourteenth was modeled after the one in the Fifth and this was the opinion of the Court itself early on. The framers would have defined "liberty" consistently with the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court has defined "liberty" as two very different meanings to pull of a huge judicial fraud.

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to correct the injustice of slavery in America (along with the Thirteenth and Fifteenth) but has since been abused to do more injustice.

 

[elected4ever]

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Patriot Believer, I understand where your coming from. I have for 40 years believed the same thing. It is however not so. I wish it were but it is not. The 14th Amendment supersedes the language of the 5th amendment. The 5th amendment states, "No person" and the 14th says, "no person born or naturalized", placing a limitation on the government to those born and naturalized in all cases where the word person appears.

In the 5th amendment it is understood that those who can be held for a capitol of infamous crime are those born and not those unborn.

In the 14th Amendment where it says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; "the word persons is limited to those born. The protections of life, liberty and property are limited to those born.

I wish it were not so but that is the way it is and I am looking to change that.

 

[elected4ever]

Here is a couple of questions that need answered because the light to life is only a part of considering whether the right to life exist for the unborn.

How does one extended to the unborn liberty?

How does one extend the right of property to the unborn?

I ask this because the right to life is extended with the right to liberty and property with equal force of law.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Patriot Believer, I understand where your coming from. I have for 40 years believed the same thing. It is however not so. I wish it were but it is not. The 14th Amendment supersedes the language of the 5th amendment. The 5th amendment states, "No person" and the 14th says, "no person born or naturalized", placing a limitation on the government to those born and naturalized in all cases where the word person appears.

In the 5th amendment it is understood that those who can be held for a capitol of infamous crime are those born and not those unborn.

In the 14th Amendment where it says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; "the word persons is limited to those born. The protections of life, liberty and property are limited to those born.

I wish it were not so but that is the way it is and I am looking to change that.

I agree that is the current fiat "legal" mandate. That assumption is the reason the Supreme Court incorrectly assigned abortion amendment status to the Fourteenth Amendment. My point was that the Fifth Amendment absolutely had nothing to do with abortion and the the word "liberty" used there is the basis for "liberty" in the Fourteenth. Therefore it made no sense to interpret a "right to abortion" in the language of an amendment where the word means the same as in the earlier existing amendment. Besides as I said, it makes no sense that the framers of the Fourteenth even fathomed authorizing such a procedure in 1868. Abortion as medical convenience didn't really exist until the Supreme Court invented the idea that the fourteenth amendment did anything other than protect the rights of all humans. You are actually condoning the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade?

 

[elected4ever]

I agree that is the current fiat "legal" mandate. That assumption is the reason the Supreme Court incorrectly assigned abortion amendment status to the Fourteenth Amendment. My point was that the Fifth Amendment absolutely had nothing to do with abortion and the the word "liberty" used there is the basis for "liberty" in the Fourteenth. Therefore it made no sense to interpret a "right to abortion" in the language of an amendment where the word means the same as in the earlier existing amendment. Besides as I said, it makes no sense that the framers of the Fourteenth even fathomed authorizing such a procedure in 1868. Abortion as medical convenience didn't really exist until the Supreme Court invented the idea that the fourteenth amendment did anything other than protect the rights of all humans. You are actually condoning the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade?

It is not fiat mandate. It is not law made of whole cloth. It is the present enforcement of constitutional law in form and content. It has solid legal constitutional capitol. I do not like it any more than you do but to deny reality is to consign the issue to certain failure.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

It is not fiat mandate. It is not law made of whole cloth. It is the present enforcement of constitutional law in form and content. It has solid legal constitutional capitol. I do not like it any more than you do but to deny reality is to consign the issue to certain failure.

I agree it is the present enforcement of the court ruling, not of constitutional law however. It has weak constitutional capitol because of the Supreme Court's inconsistent interpretation of "liberty" for starters. besides this, to bring this back on topic, Ron Paul is correct in pointing out that the problem occurred when the federal court overstepped it's authority in the first place. In his own words:

"Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court." - Ron Paul January 31, 2006

Notice he did not say that the protection of life is not a constitutional issue (H.R.2597 actually reinforces this), he said abortion wasn't, meaning the presumed "woman's right" is not a constitutional issue. It does not exist in the Constitution. If the Supreme Court could ban it they could un-ban (or "legalize" it... this is what has happened already) it every other time the case comes up and rest assured that as long as the Supreme Court has presumed jurisdiction it will always be challenged. Therefore, every time the political landscape of the court changes, in theory, it could change the "law" on abortion. Of course the reality is that that is not the case because neither liberal nor "conservative" controlled courts have been willing to rule anyway but for abortion. The solution is not there. Either an amendment recognizing the life of the unborn (I've discussed this at length earlier in the thread) or legislation like Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Acts removing the jurisdiction from the federal level to give states the ability to outlaw it.

 

[sopwith21]

God delegated power to human government.

So who are we to take out a ruler whose power was delegated by God? Saddam is dying to know.

What cases would you say that it is ok for the DP to be enacted, who would enforce it, and why?

Indisputable acts of deliberate murder accompanied by 100% irrefutable prima faci evidence. Enforced by the person(s) who suffered demonstrable loss, or the agent to whom they choose to delegate that authority.

as the evidence of our nation shows, when there is a death penalty for homosexuality, there are far less homosexuals.

Exactly. If we enact the death penalty for say, blondness, the number of blonds would decrease. We would also see a decrease in the number of blonds who continue to be blonds, and a corresponding increase in the sale of dark hair coloring. On that we agree.

Our guarantee is in His goodness, not in the fact that He cannot change.

That's a circular argument. If God can change, we have no guarantee that he will continue to be good.

You never answered the question....When Christ came to this world and became a baby in a manger was that a change for God the Son?

No. His principles, character and attributes remained identical in every way. I suppose one could make the argument that God "changed" in that he had flesh rather than a spiritual existence, much like your character, principles and attributes "change" when you switch from white socks to brown. In that sense, I suppose God changes.

Paul revealed that the death penalty should still be enforced against those who deserve it, when he said in Romans 1 that those who practice such wickedness as homosexuality are deserving of death. (Romans 1:32)

Who did he say it to?

You are advocating the wrong position when you advocate the Libertarian Party's views of striking down laws. Because God gave the Law to reach people! The Law is for unbelievers! When you remove the Law, you remove the single greatest tool to reach men!

Why not make a law that everyone must be saved with the death penalty for those who refuse? What a great tool for God that would be!

 

[sopwith21]

I know Bob Enyart and he is a good and Godly man

Good, Godly men don't lie. Ron Paul is not pro-choice. That is a lie. Bob Enyart should apologize publicly to Ron Paul and to those to whom he has spread this lie.

 

[sopwith21]

If I didn't know you so well and know you were a great guy this would honestly make me mad.

This is not an emotional issue, Kevin, nor is it an accusation. It is a simple fact. You have asked government to kill homosexuals.

We need to stop asking government to do things for us that we are unwilling to do for ourselves. An act is either right or it is wrong. Who commits the act is irrelevant. Killing does not become righteous if you wear a badge when you do it. The notion that slaughtering people is wrong until you get hired by a government - after which it becomes righteous and holy - is indefensible.