Human Life Constitutional Amendment.

It's a real shame, cmg, that you don't value the hundreds of thousands of babies that would be saved each year if states were able to ban abortion while we work on passing a human life amendment.

But yours is the typical Republican position, which is desiring to have the issue for political purposes instead of trying to find effective solutions.

 

Pro-choicer Rudy Giuliani, ironically, is the leading candidate. I take it in your fury of righteous indignation you "forgot" to criticize the single most prominent Republican candidate's views and instead chastised Paul (polling 0% nationally) for legal methodology. Now that's standing firm!

Btw, other candidates that wouldn't philosophically qualify are 1) Mitt Romney and 2) The Other Mitt Romney

 

Saying that Ron Paul would probably fall in a floor-fight is chastising him? You're seeing something there that I didn't. And the whole idea of turning the issue over to the states is wonderful, except that every time a state has tried to restrict abortion in any way over the last 20 years, it's been overturned by the courts.

 

So be it. It appeared, when combined with repeated posts on pages one and two, to be pejorative towards Paul (polling 0%) while ignoring the leading Republican candidate. The glaring omission still stands.

 

church mouse guy then claiming a prochoicer would win and now claiming the opposite:

Searh Forums turned up this gem with a thumbs up sign of approval from yours truly: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=37748&highlight=paul

With fawning to boot:

(Bolding mine.) In light of the OP and incessant Paul (polling 0%) bashing; very, very amusing. Evidently, Paul's (polling 0%) crime against God and man is not being a popular enough pro-choicer for church mouse guy.

 

I love Searh Forum!

(Bolding mine.) Quite an endorsement! Oh, well, at least he's bravely willing to stand up to Paul (polling 0%) claiming Paul (polling 0%) and lbtns are a "materialists and modernist and post-modernists."



Thread here

 

Also from Search Forum

Compared with this defense of Giuliani on abortion, gay rights, and gun control:

In other words, when Paul dissents with the GOP, it's bad. When Giuliani dissents he doesn't really mean it and should be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

Yeah, search forum is a good thing. But you know, it just looks like advocating for his candidate and contrasting positions to me.

Now me, I never take that stuff personally. Except for the times when I do :smilewinkgrin:

 

It looks to me like bashing Paul for abortion after starting a thread called, "Rudy For president!"

 

cmg is not saying don't fight at state levels, but correctly recognizing the obviously best solution rests at the federal level.

Truly great post cmg. :applause: God bless Phyllis Schafly.

 

Having abortion at the state level will not save any lives. Those who want abortions will be glad to run to states that do allow them. Nothing will change.

 

That is why Ron Paul calls for overturning Roe v. Wade and then restricting the federal courts from involving themselves in the issue.

 

That qualifies as one of the most ignorant statements ever posted in this forum in the 5.5 years that I have been posting on this board.

 

Then why is cmg railing against the idea, hillclimber1? Usually someone does not rail so adamantly against something that he is in favor of.

 

fair enough. your entitled to your opinion. But at the same time thinking that sending abortion to the state level is a fools endeavor.

 

You have to admit that it would be more easily done than passing a human life amendment. If simply allowing the states to decide the matter can't be accomplished, then getting a human life amendment added to the U.S. constitution is certainly out of reach.

 

That is the other falsenotion. Where is the evidence that it would be easier? Where is the national support and the congressionl support for this? I see no evidence that this is true.

 

Anyone who understands politics in these United States knows that amending the U.S. constitution is the hardest task in our political set up. That is why it has happened so rarely in our history.

I take it you aren't big on United States history.

 

And I am glad it is that way however I do not see getting rid of federalism any easier. Again I see no mainline support for it.