Posted on 04/21/2011 6:54:18 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
EV, you know full well that crimes such as murder and homicide are generally the domain of the States, not the Federal government.
Ron Paul has always been staunchly Pro life.
Doesn't mean they can "decide" to alienate God-given, unalienable rights, most especially the supreme right, the right to live. That would make those rights "alienable."
Ron Paul says they can be alienated if the state so chooses.
And the imperative requirements of the U.S. Constitution, the document every single officer of government, at every level, in every branch, swears before God to defend, are NOT optional.
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.""No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Unless a state decides otherwise. Then, not so much.
One is not a legal person until he or she has been born. There is a reason why we measure life in terms of days since birth, not days (or years) since conception.
Wow. That was exactly the Roe v. Wade court's position.
Unless a state decides otherwise. Then, not so much.
I'd like to hear his response to that comment.
If I understand correctly, Roe v. Wade was a case wherein the Supreme Court ruled that a State law restricting abortion was unconstitutional. Congressman Paul apparently believes that the federal government had no jurisdiction in the Roe. v, Wade case, in other words, no right to overturn the state law outlawing abortion.
So, Congressman Paul believes that States can pass laws outlawing abortion, and the federal government can't overturn them. I wonder if he believes the federal government would have a right to overturn a state law legalizing abortion, based on Constitutional grounds?
In any event, as cited, his pro-life credentials are impeccable, and as we know, everyone's opinion differs as to where the federal government has the right to encroach on our lives or into state law. Congressman Paul obviously believes in a minimal and limited central government, as the Founders did, and as I do.
Congressman Paul is right on this critical issue, at least. And I know, as has been stated above, that their are plenty of pro-life, basically Christian, small government "libertarians" who do not easily fit into the Objectivist/Randian peghole than many libertarian-bashers would like to think.
But I digress...
Wrong. He thinks states can decide whether or not to allow abortion. That has been his position for many years.
This is a violation of the first principles of this free republic, and contrary to the absolute requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
Blackmun and Co. said no, the fetus is not a person, and therefore not protected.
But even Blackmun, in the decision itself, admitted that if the fetus is a person, OF COURSE they are protected by the specific provisions of the Constitution.
Let me ask you, is the fetus a person?
"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe v. Wade, 1973
And your point is what, that I'm a Roe v. Wade supporter, that I'm some sort of abortionist?
Face it. Practically everything in our society is based on legal personhood beginning at birth. That's not to say that unborn human life isn't a person in the eyes of the Creator prior to birth, nor is it to say that unborn human life isn't worthy of legal protection.
Ron Paul, in his own words:
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion....Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
By the way, his reading of the Ninth Amendment is perverted. The Ninth Amendment explicitly forbids the EXACT thing he's doing.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The right to life is always retained by the people. It is the supreme God-given, unalienable right.
And again, he perverts the Tenth Amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The right to life is always reserved to the people. And no government, at any level, in any branch, has any lawful or constitutional authority to alienate unalienable rights, especially the supreme right, the right to live.
My point is exactly what I said. That your position is exactly what was held by the Roe court.
And it’s ridiculous, especially in light of modern science. There is not even a shadow of doubt today about when a human person has been created. And it isn’t when they have passed through a birth canal.
Wow. An excellent argument for abolishing the death penalty!
I never suggested that human life is not created at conception.
I did, however, suggest quite plainly that an individual is fully recognized (e.g., gets a legal name, a birth certificate, citizenship or nationality, etc.) by U.S. law at birth.
After all, it's quite easy to figure out when the individual has been born. It's almost impossible to figure out when the individual was naturally conceived.
Wrong again. The death penalty is clearly allowed by our Constitution, after a fair trial.
This is in keeping with the ancient law of our civilization which finds its roots in Genesis chapter nine, in which God imperatively demanded that man requite the shedding of innocent blood with the shedding of the blood of the murderer, be he man or beast.
This was God giving to mankind collectively, or should we say governmentally, the executive power, for the purpose of restraining evil and violence and protecting innocent human life.
These concepts are expanded on in the New Testament in Romans 13, where the governmental authority to exercise the power of the sword is explained to be the God-instituted means of restraining evil.
You’re confusing unalienable rights, the first and foremost of which is the right to live, with civil rights...or what the Fourteenth Amendment calls the privileges and immunities of citizenship.
Even after you’re born, you still can’t fully exercise your civil rights until you reach your majority.
But you retain your unalienable rights. You can’t be killed. You can’t be imprisoned or enslaved. You can’t have your property willy-nilly stripped from you, just because you’re a child.
Our laws, by the way, have always recognized the inheritance rights of the child in the womb. That might give you a clue as to what I’m trying to explain to you.
The post of yours that I was referring to contained no such qualification.
So, to suggest that I am wrong is absurd, unless you believe I have the capability to read your mind.
Well, I know you can’t read my mind. But, I was thinking perhaps you could read the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, since we’ve been discussing them for some time.
And if the pregnancy is ectopic, and you have to choose between the mother's life and the fetus' life, which are you going to choose?
And if the pregnancy was a cause of rape, you would force the woman to bear the child, including the financial costs, against her will, i.e., essentially denying the woman her personal liberty?
I strongly recommend qualifying your arguments appropriately; otherwise, you will have to explain how to resolve some rather ugly catch-22s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.