Ron Paul is anti abortion?

Watermark said:
Sometimes I think we should just overturn Roe vs. Wade so that the cons will stop whining constnatly like little babies.

But I'm convinced that it would take about 5 years after that for them to force their ignorance on the mothers.

A state has no more right to infringe on individual liberty than a federal government. For christsake, who cares about states rights? What good has it ever done? The people concentrated in a small area are much more likely to be radical, than an entire congress of people of varying opinions from all over the US who are unlikely ever to agree on anything but important issues.

It's much easier to practice oppression from a state than from the nation.
Click to expand...

We need more babies to pay for our Social Security!
 
Watermark said:
Sometimes I think we should just overturn Roe vs. Wade so that the cons will stop whining constnatly like little babies.

But I'm convinced that it would take about 5 years after that for them to force their ignorance on the mothers.

A state has no more right to infringe on individual liberty than a federal government. For christsake, who cares about states rights? What good has it ever done? The people concentrated in a small area are much more likely to be radical, than an entire congress of people of varying opinions from all over the US who are unlikely ever to agree on anything but important issues.

It's much easier to practice oppression from a state than from the nation.
Click to expand...

APPLAUSE

Well said
 
Watermark said:
Sometimes I think we should just overturn Roe vs. Wade so that the cons will stop whining constnatly like little babies.

But I'm convinced that it would take about 5 years after that for them to force their ignorance on the mothers.

A state has no more right to infringe on individual liberty than a federal government. For christsake, who cares about states rights? What good has it ever done? The people concentrated in a small area are much more likely to be radical, than an entire congress of people of varying opinions from all over the US who are unlikely ever to agree on anything but important issues.

It's much easier to practice oppression from a state than from the nation.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but you miss the point. It's much easier to escape what you do not like about your state than what you do not like about your country.
 
TheDanold said:
Perhaps, but you miss the point. It's much easier to escape what you do not like about your state than what you do not like about your country.
Click to expand...

Everyone has made good points but I agree with what I quoted.

I'm not as strong an advocate of state's rights as Threedee. I think that the Bill of Rights cannot and should not be infringed by any state law, but I do not believe that this is a case in which federal intervention is necessary. Much better to have consistent state policies than a constantly disputed and contested federal law that changes at every realignment.
 
Warren said:
Paul thinks it should be left to the states. I agree. There is not much justification for an inherent right to an abortion as provided by Roe, but neither is their a justifiable reason or power to permit a federal ban.
Click to expand...
The states already have the power to limit abortion in the second and third trimesters. They do not exercise that power because the anti-abortion fanatics are not willing to compromise in the slightest degree. They continually propose bans that consciously and deliberately exceed the constitutional guarantees as determined by the Supreme Court.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
The states already have the power to limit abortion in the second and third trimesters. They do not exercise that power because the anti-abortion fanatics are not willing to compromise in the slightest degree. They continually propose bans that consciously and deliberately exceed the constitutional guarantees as determined by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
It is my opinion that they do so to keep the issue alive. Knowing the law will be struck down gives them ammunition against "activist judges" and reason to continuously bring up the issue in later election years.
 
Damocles said:
It is my opinion that they do so to keep the issue alive. Knowing the law will be struck down gives them ammunition against "activist judges" and reason to continuously bring up the issue in later election years.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point.

As with anything else human, neither side is pure or saintly. There are rabid, inflexible people among us pro-choice folk, without question. The thing is, though, that the current imbroglio is driven by the inflexibility of the anti-abortion side. To all of the anti-abortion people for whom I have respect -- Immie comes to mind, for example -- I do not apologize: I simply express my regret for the necessity of mentioning the fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top