Ban on Gender Abortions FAILS in HOUSE Today

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LadyEagle, May 31, 2012.

  1. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-31/house-vote-gender-based-abortion/55312258/1



    From TheHill dot com:

    Take note, everybody. The bill was HR3541.

    So, want a boy but pregnant with a girl? KILL HER! :tear:


    Can we say "WAR ON WOMEN?"
     
  2. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    The resident Ron Paul supporters are awfully quiet!
     
  3. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no good reason for Ron Paul to oppose this. He now disgusts me and I will never consider voting for him again.
     
  4. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    I've been a supporter of Ron Paul and, yes, this makes me rethink that support. I sent an email to his campaign asking for the justification of this vote. There's not any justification that I believe I'd accept, but I still want to see what is said.

    Of course, Ron Paul aside, this bill would never have made it through the Senate. Also, even if all the R's voted for it it wouldn't have had enough votes.
     
  5. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    The Democrats are so pro-abortion they will not do anything to prohibit its use, even in the most vile of cases.

    Makes no sense other than to say its some kind of bloodlust.
     
  6. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is true and obama never would have signed it. But if any of those who voted against it claim that they are "pro-life" we know the truth now, don't we? :tear:

    Good for you, matt. :thumbs:
     
  7. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only thing positive about this is that it in an odd sort of way makes a vote for Mitt Romney seem more justified.
     
  8. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could you not figure this out before you expressed support for him?
     
  9. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have never expressed support for him. I liked most of his domestic policies but he is wacked on foreign issues. I could have supported him had he won the nomination.....until now.
     
  10. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you half supported him? There is article after article about Paul back peddling on abortion in cases of "honest rape" from the past.
     
  11. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not aware of that. And of course I do not feel the need to run around raging at everyone. I do not lump everyone into the same category <PA deleted - LE>
     
    #11 mandym, May 31, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2012
  12. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Back on topic, please. Thanks.

    Lady Eagle
     
  13. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,984
    Likes Received:
    373
    So the bill would have prevented gender based abortion but would otherwise not restrict the procedure? If I understand correctly, I really don’t see the point of the bill in regards to actual abortions being performed. A woman could get an abortion because she simply does not want the child, unless she doesn’t want the child because of its gender?
     
  14. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes actually there is if you understand Ron Paul's beliefs. He stands for the constitution and under the constitution there is no provision for the Federal government to be involved in this issue and in fact for them to get involved goes against the constitution. It is a state issue not a Federal issue from constitutional perspective. Paul does not stand against abortioin laws from a state by state standard or from a constitutional amendment for this, but he stands against the Feds making laws that violate the constitution which this law does as do most Federal laws today.
    The problem is not with Paul but the fact that most Americans and in this case Christians do not even understand that the Feds regularly violate the constitution. Many times Christians are in favor of violating it when it is in their favor but they are against it when it is against them. That will never work. Once it is violated it sets a trend and Paul stands against that trend and I agree with him on that issue. This should be a state issue OR it should be brought up as an amendment to be added to the constitution but no Federal law outside the constitution should be made in this issue if you believe in followig the constitution.
     
    #14 freeatlast, Jun 1, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2012
  15. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    40
     
  16. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    No...there isn't.
     
  17. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,984
    Likes Received:
    373
     
  18. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sickening that anyone would side with Paul on this. The appeal to the constitution over morality is quite telling.
     
  19. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe that from a Constitutional point of view it could be argued that abortion based on sex selection is dicrimination based on gender.
     
  20. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    The vote is consistent with Dr. Paul's stance that the federal government should not be involved in abortion laws.

    This is just smoke & mirrors. I'm not sure why people are more offended by this than regular abortions. I guess it does give certain people a chance to look down their noses.
     

Share This Page

Loading...