toldailytopic: Santorum shocks everyone and vaults to the front of the race. Thoughts
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
WizardofOz
New member
:liberals:
Do you feel the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to cancel out the Tenth? Let me know what specific aspect of his argument you disagree with.
| December 19, 2011 As a pro-life OB/GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I have always opposed abortion. Let me be very clear: life begins at conception. It is the duty of the government to protect life, as set forth in our founding documents. While I am known for my defense of Liberty, I often say that you can’t have Liberty without Life. I don't just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law. Today, I want to tell you a bit more about my views on life than the attached pledge really allows me to explain. I think it is important for us all to describe our views on life in our own words. I believe the attached pledge is important. The fight for the Right to Life is unlike any other in our society right now, and I am proud to be a soldier in that fight. But it is also important to fight every battle with principle. At this point, I think I am well-known for my constitutional views and sticking to my principles, even when doing so is hard and forces me to stand alone. Both this pledge and the pro-life issue itself require some careful thought from my fellow pro-lifers so we can avoid the trap of throwing out the Constitution in our effort to save lives. Just as we cannot have liberty without life, I believe the opposite is also true: we must keep the Constitution and liberty in mind when fighting for the rights of the unborn. Otherwise, we undermine the entire system our Founders put their lives on the line to create in order to protect life and liberty. I guarantee you that no one would work harder to be the most ardent and active pro-life President in history. I do not say that lightly. My entire life's work has touched on this issue in a way few others have. So as I pondered this pledge, as I do all pledges, I had to ensure I would continue to stand with the Constitution. I have previously sponsored a Human Life Amendment while in Congress, and though I ultimately do not believe this is how we will end abortion, achieving such an amendment is certainly a laudable goal. Of course, Presidents do not sign constitutional amendments - another reason I cannot guarantee what would happen on this issue. A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does - through state laws. To summarize my views - 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. I don't see the value in setting up a federal police force on this issue any more than I do on other issues. The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a "Federal Department of Abortion." Does anyone believe that will help life? We should allow our republican system of government to function as our Founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level. As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately. Millions of lives would be saved by this approach while we fight to make every state a right to life state. I would place a priority in my administration on ending federal abortion funding, defunding Planned Parenthood, and defunding any state department or UN agency that encourages abortion in their "family planning" activities. As a Congressman, I have consistently voted against giving federal funds to any organization that performs abortions or engages in "family planning" activities, and I have offered legislation on the floor of the House to defund all international family planning programs. No one has ever completely defunded these programs, because they weren't willing to undertake the fight that would result from vetoing the spending bills. I will veto these bills every time it takes until no taxpayer dollars go to abortion. I will use my constitutional authority as President to stop the enforcement of all regulations relating to ObamaCare, including the new HHS regulations forcing all employers, even religious or church-affiliated ones, to provide coverage for contraceptives and RU-486 as part of their health insurance plans. In addition, I will only put pro-life judges who adhere to the Constitution on the federal bench. Finally, I will fight back against our depraved culture by ending all federal programs that undermine the family and our traditional American values of respect for life and personal responsibility. I will lead by example, as I have done every day in my medical practice and in Congress. We CAN both fight for life AND liberty. We can remain true to our principle of following the Constitution while also fighting for our moral values. In fact, we must. I ask for the support of every one of my fellow pro-lifers. This is an important moment in history. You can vote for any of the many folks who will sign a pledge, or you can vote for the one who stands by everything he has ever said on this critical issue over the years. You can choose the candidate whose principles and consistency are unquestioned, and whose record is unmatched. You can vote for BOTH a pro-life champion and a different kind of President, who will end business as usual all across Washington, fix our budget mess, and strengthen our families by restoring jobs and upholding our values. Thank you for your consideration. For Life and Liberty, Ron Paul, MD |
source
Tell me why you would not support the following:
| define human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception, "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency. Amend the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction from reviewing cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. |
I disagree with this part---->.
I don't just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law.
The tenth ammendment isn't to be used to protect the abortion 'rights' of states. Murdering babies isn't a right. This is where Ron Paul is wrong.
I don't just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law.
The tenth ammendment isn't to be used to protect the abortion 'rights' of states. Murdering babies isn't a right. This is where Ron Paul is wrong.
WizardofOz
New member
You, like most others, do not even understand his argument. :sigh:
That argument has nothing to do with abortion per se. It is a Constitutional argument arguing where the Constitution places authority over criminal issues like abortion et al.
WizardofOz
New member
alaCarteWarrior smear job in five....four...three...two......:yawn:
(Ralphie lingers like a stalker looking to see when aCultureWarrior logs on. Refer to urbandictionary.com "anal retentive" definition).
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=anal+retentive
Don't let the two Paulbots fool you Inzl, Ron Paul as shown in the text, wants to leave murder up to the respective states:
"And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence."
Notice how the word "required" is missing (I believe the states should be required to enforce laws against murder).
Or this one:
"This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately."
Or allow them not to.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=anal+retentive
Don't let the two Paulbots fool you Inzl, Ron Paul as shown in the text, wants to leave murder up to the respective states:
"And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence."
Notice how the word "required" is missing (I believe the states should be required to enforce laws against murder).
Or this one:
"This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately."
Or allow them not to.
Yep. Ron Paul wants to sit on his hands. That is why I don't like the guy.
WizardofOz
New member
WizardofOz
New member
Would you support the following:
| define human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception, "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency. Amend the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction from reviewing cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. |
Why or why not?
elected4ever
New member
Ron Paul is right abortion should not be a federal issue. The law as it stands today recognizes the life of the unborn but does not defend that life against unwarranted death by the choice of the mother. This is what you get when abortion is nationalized. If abortion was returned to the states and the supreme court had no jurisdiction to hear abortion cases then abortion would not be constitutionally protected. The whole abortion issue falls apart.
He's terrified of the federal government (the same one that has employed him for 24 years).
He has no idea what the Founding Fathers meant by states rights. His fear is that if abortion is outlawed at the federal level, his pro homosexual marriage/pro drug legalization stance might be effected too.
That is what his constituents consist of mainly: queers and druggies.
drbrumley
Well-known member
| Edmund Randolph: If thirteen individuals are about to make a contract, and one agrees to it, but at the same time declares that he understands its meaning, signification and intent, to be, what the words of the contract plainly and obviously denote; that it is not to be construed so as to impose any supplementary condition upon him, and that he is to be exonerated from it, whensoever any such imposition shall be attempted — I ask whether in this case, these conditions on which he assented to it, would not be binding on the other twelve? In like manner these conditions will be binding on Congress. They can exercise no power that is not expressly granted them. |
You lose. :loser:
That's the way I see him as well... so much states rights that he doesn't see that some issues are national issues so that we can remain one nation in one accord under the law. This was seen as important by our founders or else they would not have written a constitution and set up the supreme courts.
I am big on states rights over federal rights ... but not to the extreme he seems to carry it. You know, in the past, I think, even Lincoln continued to support the appeasement policies in place that were allowing states to enter the union alternately as either free or slave states. Well, that didn't work ... because a national policy did need to be established regarding a stance on the slavery of human beings.
elected4ever
New member
You are the biggest lier in the world. Well maybe not but the biggest lier on this forum anyway. I am beginning to think that you love abortions sense I cannot trust you to tell the truth.
WizardofOz
New member
The enforcement of anti-abortion law by state authority is only half of his overall pro-life strategy. That's what his critics fail to mention if they are even aware at all.
If there is a federal law declaring that life begins at conception, that being would have legal protection :duh:
| 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. |
If there is a federal law declaring that life begins at conception, that being would have legal protection :duh:
Again Ralphie, the word "required" is missing.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Facts are such stubborn things......:up: Wiz
Throw in "COWARD!" and you could call yourself Ralphie.
Except for one thing:
Ralphie knows how to spell "liar".
drbrumley
Well-known member
No need for the word required when the law says this.....federal law should declare that life begins at conception.
:loser:
WizardofOz
New member
What do you disagree with?
"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