Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by mandym, Jan 11, 2012.
I applaud Rep. Paul and the others who have signed. The fact that Romney has not signed it does not surprise me in the least. He is only showing his true colors:
Thanx for posting this.
I thought he was for states rights, in other words, each state can decide their own abortion laws. Is this a flip-flop for Ron Paul?
Let's see how hard Ron Paul works at amending the constitution to ban abortions. I'm not going to hold my breath.
You should actually read the article
OK, Paul signs a pledge to work for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and then says he's not in favor of that aspect of the pledge.
This is called waffling.
What? No he isn't. He is in favor of ENFORCEMENT being from state to state, because he believes that abortion is murder, and should be treated as such. IT IS ALREADY THIS WAY. Paul is worried about having yet another Federal, bloated bureaucracy..
Ron Paul is 100 percent pro-life, and his voting record reflects it.
Personhood USA has a different take on Paul
What mechanism would Paul put in place to ensure that states enforce his federal law that says that life begins at conception? Supposing states were not enforcing this law, then what? Paul assumes that states would enforce the abortion law just as they already enforce any law against violence.
I say in defense of unborn life, bring on a new Federal bureaucracy. Or would it be a waste of money to arrest, prosecute, and convict violators of the law?
There is a problem here. Paul's federal law would need to define abortion as violence rather than a medical procedure in order for states to be obligated to enforce it. After all, can states arrest a doctor for peforming a medical procedure?
Paul's statement can be seen here:
http://www.personhoodusa.com/files/Keith Ashley/Ron Paul Personhood Statement_0.pdf
He then constructs a straw man argument saying that federal enforcement would lead to a federal police force or a "Federal Department of Abortion."
Well, he seems unwilling to support a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
Ron Paul on abortion
As I would be. "Abortion" is a subjective term. I want the unborn treated just like everyone else, not to receive EXTRA rights.
In your scenario, above, EVERY judge in the state in question, would have to be a pro-choice judge. ALL criminal laws would apply to the unborn, equally. Every pro-life judge, every pro-life policeman, every pro-life prosecutor, etc., could then arrest these people, and put them to death, or imprison them. Husbands could sue their wives for killing their children. Abortion providers could be "shot in the act" and it would HAVE to be treated as self defense.
In addition, with a person being defined as such from conception, as soon as any of them allowed an abortion performer to get off, for whatever reason, it would set a precedent that ANYONE could then use (regardless of their age).
They would be FORCED to enforce it, or face absolute anarchy and destruction of their state!
So, no, there is no need of the 14th amendment, here... :laugh:
My, you have an imagination!
I'm guessing when you mention the 14th amendment you are referring to the equal protection clause which requires each state to provide protection under the law to all people.
But what's to stop police in New York City, for example, from simply ignoring illegal, underground abortion clinics? Much in the same way Prohibition was widely ignored or prostitution is often ignored.
You seem to be saying if an abortion provider was found not guilty, for whatever reason, then murderers of adults could use the same defense as a precedent to be found not guilty. If that's what you're saying, it's ludicruous.
A doctor performs an abortion on woman and claims if it hadn't been done she would have died--that is going to give someone license to kill another person? Don't think so.
Again, Prohibition was not uniformly enforced, drug laws are not uniformly enforced, sodomy laws are not uniformly enforced, prostitution laws are not uniformly enforced. I see no reason why abortion laws would not be uniformly enforced under Paul's law.
What's to keep the crooked cops from not prosecuting the gangs that buy them off? The answer is NOT to Federalize everything. The answer is the pro-life cops, that will find out, and enforce the law.
Whats to keep Federal agents from doing the same thing? You can't legislate against such things. They are going to happen regardless what you do. The answer is the good men, that are part of that locality, that will do the right thing.
Why? Nothing ludicrous about it! Judges need legal precedent. If a human is defined as human from the moment of conception, then that COMPLETELY nullifies the "abortion" argument. Anything that makes the abortion justified, would also make the killing of an adult, under the same circumstances, be justified. It would set legal precedent.
Thats not ludicrous...that is the way our justice system works!
The doctor under such circumstances would already be justified, under self defense. Would some get away with it? Sure. But there are already a lot of people that get away with murder. Unless you want to impose a fascist police state, there is simply no way to stop them ALL>
However, if a doctor performed an abortion because the baby was deformed, or diseased, for instance, it would set a precedent that killing deformed persons, or diseased persons, was legal, IF the judge let them off.
None of these laws will EVER be uniformly enforced, even if the Federal government overstepped its bounds and took over ALL law enforcement. No law, even Federal laws, are EVER uniformly enforced. People are just as biased and sinful at the Federal level. There are just as many pro-choice people at the Federal level. But one bad Fed, makes the problem Nation wide, whereas a bad local cop restricts the problem.
Sigh. Some of you all wouldn't have anything good to say about him even if he come up with a cure for cancer.
I am not an RP fan but you are trying to use your subjective logic on something he said and draw conclusions you cannot verify. Be careful trying to speak for others. You risk misrepresenting them and being a false witness.
Others see no flaws whatsoever and defend him no matter what.
I've previously said that if he were 15 years younger I could probably support him. I'd have to ignore his ridiculous plan to go back on the gold standard, but that's OK, because there is no way that would ever come to fruition (thankfully.) I believe the U.S. needs to project power and be engaged overseas, but I agree with Paul that we don't need to be policemen or interfere militarily in other country's affairs. I prefer covert operations. :tongue3:
The Paulites really need a new standard bearer. If that person is Rand Paul I could likely support him.
I guess there is no way of combating age discrimination. If someone likes someone's candidacy, and just doesn't like black people or old people....discrimination doesn't have to be logical, I guess... :tonofbricks:
I resent the racial connection you are making. Age is an issue with leaders. Color of skin is not. Age affects mental sharpness, physical stamina, physical fitness, likelihood of serving out a term, and more.
If Paul were the nominee I can already see the TV clips showing Obama playing basketball, playing softball, playing golf, shirtless at the beach, going jogging, etc. The subliminal inferences will not be lost on the American public.
yea I agree with the other post this is a false moral equivalence.
This is a theological topic, not a political matter. You all are traducians? You believe the human soul is inherited genetically from the parents?