--------------------------------- Dr. Paul, you sound like a very staunch Libertarian, right up to that "pro-life" part.
Don't you realize that that's the mantra of the neocon fundies? When a woman becomes pregnant, does she forfeit her constitutionally-protected rights to life, liberty, and property, and become some sort of beast of burden?
Whose property are we, if not our own?
We really need to get the government out of the religion business; in case you'd care to check, it's expressly prohibited by the Constitution.
He is running for federal office. His position is constitutionally consistant and basically correct. The federal government -- an enumerated power entity (not plenary) -- was granted no power to say anything at all about abortion.
The "American Experiment" was novel in that it was a divided sovereignty paradigm. Power not explicitly granted to the federal government was "reserved to the states" (and for example, that is exactly what the 10th says). Since the federal government is not the sovereign entity, it must, if it obeys the law of the constitution, _say nothing_ on the matter of abortion and it cannot even rule on the case. (Do you believe the 14th was properly ratified?) If your argument is that the federal government has seized all kinds of powers not granted to it, under the most tortured twisting of the interstate commerce clause and "necessary and proper," and ruled on all sorts of things for which it had no jurisdiction, then who could argue with you? But that is precisely what Dr. Paul is saying not to do. The federal government is not the sovereign entity with regard to abortion.
Fundamentally, his position keeps the federal government out of the abortion business. To the extent abortion is a religious affair, then he is keeping the federal government out of the religion business. Fundamentally he is saying "I will adhere to the law; if you don't like the law, amend the constitution." If you don't like what the states are doing, then your complaint has to be with the states, not with Dr Paul.
Personally I find the fact that a visible politician in national affairs is pledging to actually obey the law defining an enumerated power government quite refreshing. You cannot say the same for any of the other democrat or republican candidate. For them "protecting the constitution" means "I'll do whatever I want." To be fair to Mitt Romney, we have to give him time to check with the lawyers. lol.
Actually it is very simple when you consider all practical matters. Fact of life... to many people eventually result in no people. Are you willing to risk all of humanity(what essentially is mass murder) for a few people?
Pro-life is so hypocritcal that its ridiculous. Its ok to force your beliefs on someone else. Pro-choice says "You have the choice on your own" while pro-life says "You must believe what I believe or I'll throw your ass in jail". Isn't religion nice?
Lol. This is ridiculous. Religion is fundamentally part of every decision any makes. The problem is that most religous people cannot stand to see anyone who thinks differently(because its essentially questioning there beliefs and they cannot be wrong because they are not emotionally strong enough to cope with it). Since at least 80% of people are moderately religious then its obvious that it plays a big part in the decision making process of our government.
Not that religion is all bad... But when you mix in ego with it then it becomes a volatile mixture which only leads to destruction.
How does that work? Does the population increase until, one Tuesday afternoon, everybody drops dead, simultaneously, from proximity effect?
I sure hope you don't design electronics.
Some people have a deep, irrational affection for children, and some would just as soon swing babies by the feet and smash their heads against the wall when they cry too much. Neither sort is necessarily religious.
Ah, so we should eliminate everything that has not accomplished something?
Does that include yourself at a somewhat earlier age?
Or do you object to that particular action, because you are partial to generalizations that involve the destruction of yourself?
That sounds like a catch-22. How can a being show its worth if it has not been given a chance to show its worth? Your argument is clearly inconsistent. But then, personally held beliefs have that unfortunate tendancy, don't they.
Children are in fact quite useful, as in addition to providing around-the-house labor when old enough, they do have the notable Darwinian benefit of having children of their own. Get rid of your "useless" children and your history dies with you. That grown up children have been known to create technological works is just an added bonus.
Reason shows rather conclusively the stupidity of abortion. As soon as an embryo is formed, it becomes something which will probably become a fully fledged human being, with all its rights and responsibilities. Coincidentially, since it is a minor, its parent/guardian(s) also have a responsibility to it, which therefore extends to conception.
And if you still object to my argument, that despite following it from beginning to end, you still do not consider an embryo sentient. Then I ask you, when do you consider it sentient? Third trimester? Birth? A one-year-old isn't all that far developed since birth, so any choice in this range is clearly arbitrary, obviously unacceptable to any rational thinker. If children are indeed useless as you claim, then abortion at conception is morally equivalent to murder (as it is presently defined) at any age before that child "gives itself a purpose". Yet, somehow, I get the feeling even you would object to killing a born child in cold blood.
Welcome back to reality...
Tim
-- Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk. Website @
You know, I really hope I'm wrong and that I'm just ignorant... but to me the consequences are not worth assuming that I am. Whats the worse that could happen if I'm wrong? Whats the worse that could happen if I'm right?
Dr. Ron Paul's position on this matter (as on other matters) appears to be quite principled, and AFAIUI, amounts to "leave it to the states to decide". I don't happen to agree with his personal views on the matter, but I don't think he's arguing for restrictive Federal legislation. I like the guy, but I don't think he'll get elected. If he gets too close, something bad will happen to him, as he threatens too much power and money.
Say, what is this "executive privilege" thing anyway? I have read the US Constitution but I didn't see anything in there about that.. is it one of those interpretation things?
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
--
"it\'s the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
I think it's derived from the "separation of powers" clause. IIRC Jefferson was the first to tell Congress to "shove it" ;-)
...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | |
formatting link
| 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
--
"it\'s the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
Yeah - I got an answer from his campaign staff, and that's pretty much what they said: the Federal gov't has no power in the case, it's reserved to the states.
You sound like you think that Roe v. Wade makes abortion mandatory, or something.
All I'm saying is that, while a fetus is still in its creator's uterus, it is her property to do with as she wishes. Once it comes out, then it is a person, with all of the unalienable rights every other born person has.
If you believe your fetus is a baby, then by all means, carry it to full-term and give birth to it. You have the right to choose how your body parts and their contents are treated.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.